[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 79 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3998-H4010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I
call up the resolution (H. Res. 292) declaring that the President shall
not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of
the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 292
Resolved,
SECTION 1. STATEMENTS OF POLICY.
The House of Representatives makes the following statements
of policy:
(1) The United States Armed Forces shall be used
exclusively to defend and advance the national security
interests of the United States.
(2) The President has failed to provide Congress with a
compelling rationale based upon United States national
security interests for current United States military
activities regarding Libya.
(3) The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain
the presence of units and members of the United States Armed
Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the
presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from
imminent danger.
SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH INFORMATION RELATING
TO OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN AND OPERATION UNIFIED
PROTECTOR.
The House of Representatives directs the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General,
respectively, to transmit to the House of Representatives,
not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this
resolution, copies of any official document, record, memo,
correspondence, or other communication in the possession of
each officer that was created on or after February 15, 2011,
and refers or relates to--
(1) consultation or communication with Congress regarding
the employment or deployment of the United States Armed
Forces for Operation Odyssey Dawn or NATO Operation Unified
Protector; or
(2) the War Powers Resolution and Operation Odyssey Dawn or
Operation Unified Protector.
SEC. 3. REPORT TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Contents.--Not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of this resolution, the President shall transmit to
the House of Representatives a report describing in detail
United States security interests and objectives, and the
activities of United States Armed Forces, in Libya since
March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:
(1) The President's justification for not seeking
authorization by Congress for the use of military force in
Libya.
(2) United States political and military objectives
regarding Libya, including the relationship between the
intended objectives and the operational means being employed
to achieve them.
(3) Changes in United States political and military
objectives following the assumption of command by the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
(4) Differences between United States political and
military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO
member states engaged in military activities.
(5) The specific commitments by the United States to
ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
[[Page H3999]]
(6) The anticipated scope and duration of continued United
States military involvement in support of NATO activities
regarding Libya.
(7) The costs of United States military, political, and
humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
(8) The total projected costs of United States military,
political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya.
(9) The impact on United States activities in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(10) The role of the United States in the establishment of
a political structure to succeed the current Libyan regime.
(11) An assessment of the current military capacity of
opposition forces in Libya.
(12) An assessment of the ability of opposition forces in
Libya to establish effective military and political control
of Libya and a practicable timetable for accomplishing these
objectives.
(13) An assessment of the consequences of a cessation of
United States military activities on the viability of
continued NATO operations regarding Libya and on the
continued viability of groups opposing the Libyan regime.
(14) The composition and political agenda of the Interim
Transitional National Council (ITNC) and its representation
of the views of the Libyan people as a whole.
(15) The criteria to be used to determine United States
recognition of the ITNC as the representative of the Libyan
people, including the role of current and former members of
the existing regime.
(16) Financial resources currently available to opposition
groups and United States plans to facilitate their access to
seized assets of the Libyan regime and proceeds from the sale
of Libyan petroleum.
(17) The relationship between the ITNC and the Muslim
Brotherhood, the members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting
Group, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and any other group that has
promoted an agenda that would negatively impact United States
interests.
(18) Weapons acquired for use, and operations initiated, in
Libya by the Muslim Brotherhood, the members of the Libyan
Islamic Fighting Group, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and any other
group that has promoted an agenda that would negatively
impact United States interests.
(19) The status of the 20,000 MANPADS cited by the
Commander of the U.S. Africa Command, as well as Libya's
SCUD-Bs and chemical munitions, including mustard gas.
(20) Material, communication, coordination, financing and
other forms of support between and among al-Qaeda operatives,
its affiliates, and supporters in Yemen, the Horn of Africa,
and North Africa.
(21) Contributions by Jordan, the United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, and other regional states in support of NATO
activities in Libya.
(b) Transmittal.--The report required by this section shall
be submitted in unclassified form, with a classified annex,
as deemed necessary.
SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
(a) The President has not sought, and Congress has not
provided, authorization for the introduction or continued
involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya.
(b) Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold
funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed
Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding
Libya.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Berman) each will control 20 minutes. The
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong support of House Resolution 292, sponsored by our
distinguished Speaker. As the resolution states at the outset, the
Armed Forces of the United States may only be used to defend and
advance the national security interests of the United States, not to
enforce, to quote the President, ``the writ of the international
community,'' nor because of the United Nations, nor because of the Arab
League. Yet these are what the President has repeatedly pointed to in
justifying sending U.S. forces into action in Libya.
But what he has not done is explain to the American people and to
Congress how the situation in Libya, if allowed to spiral out of
control, poses a threat to U.S. national security interests.
It is an increasingly important region, Mr. Speaker, with
implications stretching into other areas that are vital to our Nation.
Little, if any, details have been provided in response to repeated
questions regarding U.S. goals, the costs of the operation, the scope
of the operation, and other issues of direct relevance to our national
security. It is an open question as to whether the administration
simply won't tell us or whether they just don't know the answers.
Members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. I
share that frustration. Many question the importance of Libya to U.S.
interests, and especially the need for military engagement. Many more
are outright angry about the disregard with which the President and his
administration have treated Congress on the Libya military engagement.
But it is not surprising that there is a desire to simply say
``enough'' and to force the President to withdraw precipitously,
regardless of the consequences. But I believe that we would only make a
difficult situation worse by taking such drastic action. The negative
impact would be widespread, Mr. Speaker. The news that the U.S. House
of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send
a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Qadhafi is currently hiding.
It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen not only in Libya,
but throughout the Middle East and North Africa as open season to
threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies.
Pulling out of the NATO operation would also undermine our NATO
partners, who, after years of prodding by us, have finally begun to
take more responsibility for ensuring security and stability in the
region. How could we then argue that they must maintain their
commitment to our allied efforts in Afghanistan when we have just
pulled the rug out from under them in Libya?
We must not let our frustration with the President's contempt for
Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would
harm our standing, our credibility, and our interests in the region.
But clearly, we must speak out.
This resolution offered by Speaker Boehner would send an unambiguous
warning to the President that he must either change course in his
dealings with Congress and the American people or have the decisions
regarding U.S. involvement in Libya taken out of his hands.
{time} 1050
It states a fundamental truth that I assume that most in this Chamber
agree with that U.S. forces must only be used to defend and advance the
national security interests of the United States. It underscores that
the President has not made a compelling case for U.S. military
involvement based on U.S. interests, and it prohibits the employment of
U.S. ground forces in Libya so that mission creep would not gradually
lead us into an ever-expanding conflict.
It also requires the President to provide to Congress the information
that we should have had at the outset, including, Mr. Speaker:
What are the political and military objectives of the United States
and Libya?
How do we intend to achieve them? What specific commitment have we
made to our NATO operations, and how might these impact our commitments
in Afghanistan?
What is the anticipated scope, the duration, and the anticipated cost
of continued U.S. military involvement in Libya?
What is the relationship between opposition forces that are grouped
under the Interim Transitional National Council and the Muslim
Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, al Qaeda, Hezbollah,
and other extremist groups?
How well armed are these and other extremist groups, and how
extensive are their activities in Libya?
Who controls thousands of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and
stocks of chemical weapons that Qadhafi has acquired?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution bluntly states that the
President has neither sought nor received authorization by the Congress
for the continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in
Libya. If this clear warning doesn't get the attention at
[[Page H4000]]
the White House, then more forceful action may be inevitable. The
President can choose to act with the support of Congress and with the
support of the American people, but he will not be allowed to proceed
without it.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this strong and necessary
resolution.
With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
In March, when the President committed our troops to NATO's mission
in Libya, I said that he had a responsibility to the American people to
define the mission, to explain what America's role was in achieving
that mission and lay out how it was to be accomplished. He has not
effectively done so. The American people and the Members of this House
have questions and concerns that have gone unanswered.
The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief, and I
have always believed combat decisions should be left to the Commander
in Chief and to the generals on the ground. But the House also has an
obligation to heed the concerns of our constituents and to carry out
our constitutional responsibilities.
The resolution I have put forward expresses the will of the people in
a responsible way that reflects our commitments to our troops and to
our allies.
Let me lay out exactly what this resolution does.
First, it establishes that the President has not asked for and that
the Congress has not granted authorization for the introduction or
continued involvement of our troops in Libya.
Second, it reasserts Congress' constitutional role to fund our
troops.
Third, it requires the President to provide, within 14 days,
information on that mission that should have been provided from the
start.
And, lastly, it reaffirms the vote that we took last week that says
that there should be no troops on the ground in Libya.
I hope the President will recognize his obligations outlined in this
resolution and provide this information to Congress and, in doing so,
better communicate to the American people what our mission in Libya is
and how it will be achieved.
The resolution offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich)
conveys the concerns of the American people, but it also mandates a
precipitous withdrawal from our role in supporting our NATO allies in
Libya. In my opinion, that would undermine our troops and our allies,
which could have serious consequences for our broader national
security.
In my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far. We may have
differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn our backs on
our troops and our NATO partners who have stuck by us over the last 10
years.
In 1991 in my first vote as a Member of this body, I voted to
authorize the use of force in the first Gulf War. It was a
consequential time, but I think we did the right thing. And today is no
different. On behalf of the American people and our country, we have an
obligation to support our troops in harm's way and to support our
allies.
This resolution puts the President on notice. He has a chance to get
this right; and if he doesn't, Congress will exercise its
constitutional authority and we will make it right.
I urge a ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a ``no'' on the
Kucinich resolution.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
If the Members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber
resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be
one big constitutionally created potted plant.
This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the President. It
states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling
rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a
withholding of documents and information from this body.
Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of
course. But we need to look not just at the President's failure to seek
an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its
authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred
duty of authorizing the use of force.
A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no
invocation of the War Powers Resolution and which was presented to
Members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a
dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the
most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War.
There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the
President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were
wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling
national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach
and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War
Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces.
If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of
us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave
consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the
use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces
that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill
had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an
authorization of the limited use of force.
But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the
President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is
just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to
embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of
the intervention.
The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of
powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this
operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not
play around with reporting requirements.
The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall
not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the
ground in Libya.
{time} 1100
But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited
to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the
majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority
seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not
the way to legislate.
Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright
inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national
security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are
clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and,
ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol.
We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against
civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help.
Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are
putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a
dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for
democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to
act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the
activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy
could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led
government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to
Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power?
Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of
terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We
know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use
terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a
more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya.
I object to the characterization that U.S. national security
interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is
quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very
much correspond with U.S. national interests.
The Republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both
ways. They want to criticize the President for taking the very action
that many of them called for 3 months ago. And
[[Page H4001]]
they want to do so without taking any responsibility. In the process,
they are offering nothing but criticism, obstruction and endless
second-guessing.
President Bush once accused the Democratic Party of becoming ``the
party of cut and run.'' Well, it seems the running shoe is now on the
other foot. It is a Democratic President that is taking on a brutal
tyrant, and it is the Republican Party that refuses to back him.
I urge my colleagues to take seriously U.S. military involvement in
Libya and vote ``no'' on this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 292 and H.
Con. Res. 51.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman on the Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that the Constitution of the
United States and the War Powers Act prohibit the President from doing
what he did. And I'm kind of torn because I stayed up late last night
thinking about this whole issue. I believe that we shouldn't have gone
into Libya in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't go into Syria
or another place without the authorization of the Congress of the
United States.
And that's the reason why I cosponsored the Kucinich resolution,
because we have to send a very strong signal that we're not going to go
to war without the people of this country supporting it. And the
President did this unilaterally after talking to the Arab League and
the U.N. and others without the consent of the people of this country.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is the Boehner resolution I'm going to support, but
it doesn't go far enough. As far as it goes, it's fine. But it talks
only about boots on the ground. Most of the wars in which we've been
involved are fought in the air with drones, missiles and airplanes. And
about two-thirds of the missiles and over half of the sorties flown by
the airplanes that are involved in this war, over two-thirds of those
are used by the United States. This is an American conflict. And so
when we talk about boots on the ground, that's not sufficient.
Now, I'm going to support it as far as it goes because the Speaker is
trying to move this in the right direction, but we shouldn't just limit
this to boots on the ground. It should involve no military operation
whatsoever without the consent of the Congress and the people of this
country. And when the Speaker says boots on the ground only, unless we
are going in to save one of our troops that are downed in an air fight
or shot down when they go in on a bombing run, then that, in effect, is
putting boots on the ground anyhow to get those people out of there.
So, I will support the Boehner resolution, but I prefer the Kucinich
resolution because it sends a very strong signal and tells the
President, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot take us to war without
the consent of the people of this country.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing
and what we're not doing. ``No boots on the ground'' did not come
because of this resolution we are considering now. This was the
decision of the President, the Commander in Chief, at the time. But the
figures given by my friend from Indiana don't reflect the reality of
our participation.
What are we doing now? While we're not in the lead, the United States
is contributing significantly to the operation: fighter aircraft for
the suppression of enemy air defense, ISR aircraft, electronic warfare
aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and
predatory armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. Twenty-four
percent, not two-thirds of the total aircraft; 27 percent of the total
sorties flown; over 75 percent of all refueling sorties; 70 percent of
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.
Now there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement
implicates the War Powers Resolution. This is within the meaning of
that bill. And, once again, only Kucinich has before us a proposal that
seeks to deal with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
I just think we should get the record straight about what our
involvement is. It's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it
is significant. And in my opinion, it's within the terms of the War
Powers Resolution.
I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for yielding.
And let me just say, first of all, I rise in opposition to the Boehner
resolution.
This debate is long overdue. On March 30, I, along with
Representatives Woolsey, Honda, Grijalva and Waters, sent a letter to
Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor requesting that they hold a
debate and floor vote on the President's authority to continue the use
of military force in Libya.
I would like to insert the letter into the Record.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eric Cantor,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor: We, the
undersigned Members of Congress, write to request the U.S.
House of Representatives immediately take steps to hold a
debate and floor vote on the President's authority to
continue the use of military force in Libya.
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the
responsibility to declare war rests with Congress alone. The
War Powers Act of 1973 further clarified the important
separation of powers and checks and balances in these
matters. Consideration of the Presidents continued military
engagement in Libya is our responsibility as elected
representatives in the U.S. Congress, and essential to
reasserting the undisputed role and responsibility of the
Legislative Branch in overseeing and providing for our
nation's commitments while at war.
The United States has now been engaged militarily in Libya
since March 19, 2011. While we firmly believe that a robust
debate and up-or-down floor vote should have occulted in
advance of U.S. military action in Libya, it is without
question that such measures are still urgently required.
Beyond defending Congressional authority in these matters,
these deliberations are essential to ensuring that we as a
country fully debate and understand the strategic goals,
costs, and long-term consequences of military action in
Libya.
Many questions remain unanswered regarding our short and
long-term responsibilities in Libya as well as our strategy
for ending U.S. military operations. The Department of
Defense has indicated that the costs of U.S. military
operations in Libya totaled $600 million in the first week
alone, and are estimated to mount by as much as $100 million
per week, in the future. At a time of severe economic
distress here at home, as well as in recognition of the
continued strain on our military service members already
engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these concerns
are especially worthy of congressional deliberation.
It is our position that the President has a constitutional
obligation to seek specific, statutory authorization for
offensive military action, as he should have done with regard
to U.S. military engagement in Libya. We look forward to
working with you to address this matter on the House floor as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee,
Member of Congress.
Lynn C. Woolsey,
Member of Congress.
Michael M. Honda,
Member of Congress.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Member of Congress.
Maxine Waters,
Member of Congress.
Madam Speaker, I would like to read parts of this letter, dated March
30, if I may:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor: We, the undersigned
Members of Congress, write to request the United States House of
Representatives immediately take steps to hold a debate and floor vote
on the President's authority to continue the use of military force in
Libya.
[[Page H4002]]
We cite the Constitution, article I, section 8.
We go on to say that the United States has now been engaged
militarily in Libya since March 19, 2011. While we firmly believe that
a robust debate and up-or-down floor vote should have occurred in
advance of U.S. military action in Libya, it is without question that
such measures are still urgently required. Beyond defending
congressional authority in these matters, these deliberations are
essential to ensuring that we as a country fully debate and understand
the strategic goals, costs, and long-term consequences of military
action in Libya.
That is one paragraph of this sentence.
Now, Madam Speaker, over 60 days since our letter, the Speaker has
suddenly and hastily scheduled a resolution that, frankly, does nothing
but serve to politicize what is an extremely serious and what should be
a nonpartisan issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
{time} 1110
Ms. LEE. As we know, the War Powers Act specifically forbids Armed
Forces from engaging in military action in foreign lands for more than
60 days without congressional authorization or the use of military
force or a declaration of war.
We have been actively fighting now for 77 days. This is not just
about our mission in Libya. And let me just say that I think our
President, frankly, has done a commendable job in handling the very
complex range of foreign policy issues, but it is about any President,
any administration. It is not about that; it is about standing up for
congressional power granted in the Constitution. As our ranking member
said, the Kucinich amendment is the amendment that addresses this head-
on in a very honest and direct way.
So we should reject this politically motivated resolution. It is a
resolution that has just come up. We asked again the Speaker and
majority leader on March 30 to conduct a debate and an up-or-down vote.
We conclude in our letter that it is our position that the President
has a constitutional obligation to seek specific statutory authority
for offensive military action, as he should have done with regard to
U.S. military engagement in Libya.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a valued member of our
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Florida for
yielding me this time. I rise respectfully in support of House
Resolution 292, which reasserts the congressional war-making authority
of section 8, article I of the Constitution, and I respectfully
disagree with my ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
for whom I have enormous respect.
I don't think this resolution takes gratuitous potshots at the
President of the United States. I think it is a thoughtful exposition
of the issues in front of us and the requirements that we want to put
on the President, and it buys the President time to comply without the
disruption that the Kucinich resolution would cause, not only in Libya,
but the ramifications for NATO relationships and in the Arab democratic
spring.
The resolution prohibits the President from deploying ground troops
in Libya, and declares Congress has the constitutional prerogative to
withhold funding for any unauthorized use of U.S. Armed Forces. It
requires the administration to transmit to the House of Representatives
any records regarding congressional communication and Operation Odyssey
Dawn in Libya within 14 days of passage.
Madam Speaker, since before the passage of the War Powers Resolution
in 1973, the executive branch, regardless of party or leader, has
argued that there are inherent constitutional powers contained in the
constitutional reference to the President as Commander in Chief. If one
argues that section 2, article II of the Constitution grants the
President inherent powers as Commander in Chief, then logically one
ought to acknowledge that Congress also has inherent powers as the only
entity expressly granted the power to declare war in that document.
According to the House report regarding the War Powers Resolution,
``consultation . . . means that a decision is pending on a problem and
that Members of Congress are being asked by the President for their
advice and opinions and, in appropriate circumstances, their approval
of action contemplated.'' This report language makes the intention of
the War Powers Resolution clear: Consultation ought to be active, not
merely informative. In the War Powers Resolution, the term
``hostilities'' was used deliberately instead of ``armed conflict''
precisely because of the former phrase's broader nature. The
Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are clear: Congress must
have a role with regard to the use and deployment of U.S. forces. The
extent of that role has been the subject of debate as old as the United
States itself.
To go even further, a strict constructionist would argue that the War
Powers Resolution itself limits congressional authority. The act of
even acknowledging the need for a statutory framework to codify
Congress' powers in the Constitution in fact dilutes those powers and
may have the unintended effect of enhancing the Executive's powers
directly at the expense of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, House
Resolution 292, to assert congressional authority and to buy the
President time with which to comply.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to respond to my friend's arguments. I agree with every
word he said except that this is a manifestation of the Congress
exercising its authority. This is an abdication of Congress exercising
its authority, because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization
for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be
authorizing if we think they are appropriate.
The gentleman from Ohio doesn't think they are appropriate. Some of
us do think it is appropriate, and this isn't about buying time. We are
not a supplicant to go to the executive branch and ask for them to
request of us authorization. We have the institutional power to decide
what to do, and this resolution fails to take that option.
I think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution
is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the
Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have been here a long time, and I have never come to this floor for
the purpose of opposing innocuous resolutions. In fact, I've voted for
every piece of innocuous legislation and post office renaming in the
last 15 years, as far as I can remember. And this is innocuous
legislation.
First, it starts with a sense of Congress about our opinion as to
what should or shouldn't be done. It has a sentence that purports to
prevent the President from putting ground forces in Libya, but in fact
just states that's our policy. It is certainly not designed to prohibit
the President from doing so; it just says that it's our opinion that he
shouldn't. And, by the way, in the Defense authorization bill, we have
real legislation that already prohibits putting ground forces in Libya.
It then goes on to ask that a number of questions be answered. There
are some who think, that's important. Those who think that the
questions propounded in this resolution are actually going to get us
useful information are insulting the faculty of the law schools of
America, because both the Pentagon and the State Department have
lawyers capable of writing long and meaningless answers to every
question we propound. And as for getting documents, some of the
documents demanded we already have, and as for the rest, those same
lawyers will be writing long documents about executive privilege.
So we have here a document that at most is just questions for the
Record that the chairwoman of our committee allows me to add at the end
of so many hearings; hardly earthshaking, certainly innocuous.
But, okay, so it's innocuous. Or is it?
[[Page H4003]]
This is innocuous legislation that plays a particular role in
avoiding the constitutional role of this Congress. It allows us to
sidestep the War Powers Act. It gives cover to those who don't want to
authorize, or refuse to authorize. It says we're an advisory body. We
ask some questions so we can give good advice. We will give the
President some advice. It is part of the trend of an aggrandizing
executive and a derelict Congress, a Congress that almost is complicit
in this slow process by which we are not legislators, we are not
deciders; we inquire and we advise.
The Constitution is clear, but the War Powers Act is more clear: the
President must ask for congressional authorization. Then we actually
have to act, and that is tough. We have to review the proposals, and I
believe our ranking member (Mr. Berman) would have one that would say,
What are we going to authorize? Under what conditions? What demands
will we make of our allies in Libya to perhaps turn over to us, or at
least disassociate themselves from, the al Qaeda operatives in their
midst? Are we going to limit the duration? Are we going to limit the
scope? Are we going to impose limits on the total cost?
With this resolution, we can avoid all of those questions. We can
avoid demanding a withdrawal. We can avoid limiting the authorization,
and we can allow the President to continue to write the blank check
that apparently he believes he has, and we can do it all while
disassociating ourselves with anything unpopular that ever happens over
the skies of Libya.
Now is not the time for us to shirk our responsibilities. Our
responsibility is to act as a policy-making body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the gentleman for 1 more minute.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
{time} 1120
Mr. SHERMAN. Now is the time for us to play the role that the War
Powers Act provides, because this is not an immediate short-term
emergency situation. It has gone on for much longer than 60 days. It
should not go further.
Now, 208 Members of this Congress voted for my amendment yesterday to
say that we should not expend funds in violation of the War Powers Act,
and you were willing to vote for it even though I put it on a bill as
to which it really didn't pertain. Thank you for those votes, but now
please come back here and say, It's time to enforce the War Powers Act.
It's time not to dodge the War Powers Act. It's time for our policy
over the skies in Libya to be determined by the President and Congress,
not the President advised by Congress.
Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Don't use it as a sidestep. Instead,
go back to your constituents and say, You are for voting either for a
withdrawal from Libya or for a full authorization or for a limited
authorization.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to
my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank my friend and the chairman for yielding
me this time because I think it is important to stress the importance
of the Boehner resolution. Especially on page 4 and page 7 of the
resolution, it deals specifically with the Constitution and the
constitutional responsibility of the administration and the Congress to
work together, especially in matters of national security.
As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as my
colleague has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding for
any military operation that is approved by the Commander in Chief and
approved by the Congress.
On the matter of Libya, on April 1, I sent a letter to the President,
trying to exercise my responsibilities as chairman--a conciliatory
letter, actually--expressing support for our troops but asking certain
questions: How long do you think this will last? How much do you think
it will cost? How much of a future commitment have we made? What will
be the source of the funding for this operation? Here, more than 2
months later, this official request from the Appropriations Committee
still remains unanswered by the administration. That's just not right.
The Constitution is pretty clear. Article I, section 9 of the
Constitution, in part, reads, ``No money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a
regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all
public money shall be published from time to time.''
So far, on the Libya issue, this article I, section 9 has been
totally ignored. It's just not right. That's a violation, in my
opinion, and contravenes the Constitution, itself. When I asked for
that information, the only thing I got on the cost of this Libyan
operation was in bits and pieces. We have added it, and we have come to
about $750 million already spent on the Libyan mission. They've not
confirmed that, but we have put together, with our own addition, bits
and pieces on that. Again, we have received no reply whatsoever.
What I'm wondering is: Where is the money to pay for the Libyan
operation coming from? What account is it coming from? Is it coming out
of personnel costs--soldiers' pay? Is it coming out of medical care? Is
it coming out of the training for our troops? What accounts are being
used? We have a right and an obligation under the Constitution to know
the answer to that.
Speaker Boehner's resolution calls very, very sharp attention to that
issue, so I think it is important that the House passes the Boehner
resolution to let the President know that we are not going to allow him
to ignore the Constitution any further when it comes to war powers,
when it comes to spending for the welfare of our troops, when it comes
to appropriating money for the defense of our Nation and for the
defense of our allies.
Madam Speaker, I do ask that the letter that I sent to the President,
which has remained unanswered for more than 2 months, be included at
this point in the Record so that my colleagues can see that it was a
very, very legitimate and a very conciliatory request, basically an
offer to support our troops in any legitimate activity. So we are still
waiting. We are standing by, hoping that we do hear from the President
very soon, maybe shortly after we pass the Boehner resolution.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.
President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Recent events across northern Africa
and the Middle East demonstrate the powerful effect that the
prospect of self-government and basic human rights can have
on an oppressed population. Governments have fallen and
nations have changed, all in the name of freedom. Operation
Odyssey Dawn (now Unified Protector), based on United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1973, is another chapter in this
remarkable story that history is writing before us.
The Members of the House Defense Subcommittee on
Appropriations stand ready to support our brave men and women
in uniform as they carry out their mission, but it is
essential that we know precisely what that mission is, and
what role U.S. troops have in achieving that mission. For
example, enforcement of a no-fly-zone is one thing, but the
use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 aircraft denote an entirely
different battle. And without knowing what goals we hope to
achieve, our long-term commitment is unclear. Indeed, as
history has taught us, without defined goals or objectives
the probability of an open-ended campaign increases. As our
nation continues to struggle through the current fiscal
crisis, an exit strategy seems all the more prudent. There
was, however, little to no consultation with Congress prior
to these actions, and almost two weeks after our first
engagement, many of these concerns remain unaddressed.
The Department of Defense has indicated that through March
28, they spent approximately $550 million in support of
Operation Odyssey Dawn; and they expect to spend at a minimum
another $40 million a month as we continue to support the now
NATO-led Operation Unified Protector. This assumes a reduced
U.S. role, which could change significantly if NATO requires
additional support. It was also made clear that there would
be no additional funds requested by your Administration,
either in the form of a supplemental request or a budget
amendment. In fact, you stated that the costs of this mission
could be paid for out of previously appropriated funds. As
this Committee works to finish fiscal year 2011 and begins
work on fiscal year 2012, I feel it is imperative that we
know where you believe these funds will come from. Based on
the above Department
[[Page H4004]]
of Defense rate, costs for fiscal year 2011 could reach $800
million, and depending on the length of our commitment,
another $500 million in fiscal year 2012. I do not need to
remind you that the Department of Defense fiscal year 2012
request is already $13 billion below where it was estimated
it would be just a year ago--the reduction taken in the name
of efficiencies.
As the nation's military continue to serve in harm's way, I
feel it is imperative we proceed with complete openness and
transparency. I pledge that I will continue to do everything
I can to support these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and
airmen, as I have done throughout my career, and I ask for
your help and support in doing the same.
Sincerely,
C. W. Bill Young,
Chairman, Defense Subcommittee.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
In defense of Mr. Burton's description of U.S. involvement already in
Libya, I would like to have entered into the Record an article from the
Guardian U.K., dated May 22, which talks about the United States having
50 percent of the ships, 50 percent of the planes, 66 percent of the
personnel, 93 percent of the cruise missiles.
I just want to say briefly, Madam Speaker, that this article was
written about 10 days ago. If it's true, it points out that we've
undertaken a huge mission through the United States in the name of
NATO--now, without coming to the Congress, and that's what we're
debating, of course. Yet if, on the other hand, the information that
the administration has communicated as of late to the Congress suggests
a lighter footprint, then there should be no difficulty in pulling out
of Libya in 15 days. If there is, we need to start asking questions
about how deeply enmeshed we are if our participation is truly no boots
on the ground.
[From the guardian.co.uk, May 22, 2011]
Libya: Britain's 1bn War
(By Richard Norton-Taylor and Simon Rogers)
Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the
taxpayer as much as 1bn if it continues into the
autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data
gathered by the Guardian.
Two months after western powers began bombing Libyan
targets to protect civilians in Operation Unified Protector,
the cost to Britain so far of the dozens of bombs dropped,
hundreds of sorties flown and more than 1,000 service
personnel deployed is estimated at more than
100m, according to British defence officials.
But defence economists have told the Guardian the costings
are conservative. Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence
Analysis newsletter, estimates that by the end of April
Libyan operations had already cost the UK about
300m and that the bill was increasing by up to
38m a week.
Defence chiefs in the UK and US are also said to be
concerned that some NATO countries are unwilling to commit
air power to the campaign. It is not only the cost that is
worrying the Ministry of Defence, and, indeed, defence chiefs
in the Pentagon. The reluctance of most countries to commit
their air forces to action--Norway, which has dropped about
300 bombs, is to pull out at the end of June--is causing
serious concern among military commanders throughout the
alliance about whether NATO countries have the political will
and military capability to continue operations that now have
the stated aim of removing power from Gaddafi, his sons, and
closet advisers.
For Britain, the Libyan conflict has also presented
military commanders and ministers alike with an uncomfortable
reminder of the perilous state of the defence budget. As Paul
Cornish, head of the international security programme at the
thinktank Chatham House, has observed, many of the military
capabilities used in and around Libya--HMS Cumberland, the
Nimrod R1 eavesdropping plane, the Sentinental surveillance
aircraft, and Tornado jets--are among the first casualties to
be scrapped or their numbers reduced (in the case of
Tornados) as a result of last year's strategic defence and
security review.
``The obvious question to ask,'' Cornish writes in the
latest issue of The World Today, ``is whether Britain could
have made a contribution to the intervention in Libya had the
crisis developed later in 2011 when most of the
decommissionings, disbandments, and retirements would
otherwise have taken place.''
The U.S. led the assault, during the first week flying more
than 800 sorties in Libya, of which over 300 were strike
sorties. It fired more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles from
its ships. Britain has fired fewer than 20 Tomahawks, costing
an estimated 1m each, from the submarine HMS
Triumph.
Britain, which has accounted for some 25% of all sorties,
was so worried about the gap left by the U.S. when it ceded
command to NATO, and stood down its aircraft--including low-
flying A10 tankbusting ``Warthogs'' and C130 gunships.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Financial Services Committee
and a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, with a
distinguished 26-year military career.
Mr. STIVERS. I would like to thank the chairwoman for yielding me
time.
I rise in support of the Speaker's resolution. With 26 years of
military service, my experience has taught me many lessons, and those
lessons give me pause and concern with regard to the Kucinich
resolution. I think we need to be prudent, thoughtful and measured in
the way we end our involvement in Libya, and I don't believe that the
Kucinich resolution does that.
Even though the President did not follow proper procedures and even
though he should have allowed Congress to debate and decide the issue,
a 15-day withdrawal would cause other issues. Currently, the U.S. is
providing important refueling, logistics and other support functions
for our NATO allies. Unfortunately, if you create a 15-day time line,
those allies might not have time to plan or build capacity to resource
their plan and effectively continue their operations.
I don't agree with how the President has handled our current military
mission in Libya, and I don't think he has currently explained the
national security interest of our mission. However, I think the troops
that have been called to action have performed admirably, and I thank
them for their service. But now we are involved, and the time frame for
withdrawal in the Kucinich resolution would hurt our NATO allies, the
same allies who have stood by us in Afghanistan for 10 years. They
deserve our cooperation in any transition. I support the Speaker's
alternative resolution on Libya. I think it asks tough questions of the
President, and requires him to explain our national security interests
and to justify his strategy to Congress and to the American people. If
the President doesn't answer those questions within 14 days, I believe
Congress should continue to assert its constitutional authority.
In response to the gentleman from California, I would like to say
that I think it is important we get information to make timely
decisions. Therefore, I support the Speaker's alternative resolution as
a way forward in Libya.
{time} 1130
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in response to
the previous speaker.
What I'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. If the
President doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are
we doing? The resolution is silent. This is a resolution filled with
things we want and are asking for and demanding and are harumphing
about with no consequences.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
former member of the committee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a ``here we go again'' moment on the House
floor.
Two weeks ago the Kucinich amendment passed the House overwhelmingly
with a total bipartisan vote because it was the right thing to do. But,
no, the other side of the aisle can't stand to let us have an
initiative, the right thing to do, that they really could agree to.
So here we are today debating the Boehner resolution to take the air
out of the question of whether the United States Congress or the White
House has responsibility for the War Powers Resolution and begging them
to know that it is our responsibility.
Members should not be fooled into voting for the Boehner resolution
because it delays action. We should vote for the Kucinich resolution
that insists that the Congress reclaim its authority, take its
responsibility, and do the right thing regarding Libya.
Vote ``no'' on the Boehner resolution.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, the resolution offered by the Speaker is the
responsible approach. It expresses congressional intent. It affords one
last opportunity to the President and his administration
[[Page H4005]]
to work with us in Congress to advance U.S. interests in the region. I
hope that the President is listening and that this resolution will
serve as a wake-up call leading to immediate consultation. And,
frankly, we have not had that as we would like.
If, in 14 days, as it says in this resolution, the President has not
complied with the requests included in the resolution, then this House
will consider the next steps.
I therefore urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehner resolution, a
responsible approach to the President to work with us and a plea to
give us the information that we requested.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I do not believe
that the President has provided adequate justification for our military
operations in Libya nor why continued intervention in a humanitarian
stalemate is in our national interest.
More than 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President outlining my
concerns regarding our strategy, our role within NATO operations, and
the escalating costs of these operations at a time when the
administration is asking the Department of Defense to make an
additional $400 billion in cuts. To date, I have not received a reply.
Yet I believe that forcing the hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces from
NATO operations in Libya would embolden Qadhafi and gravely damage our
credibility with our allies. Consequently, such a move could have
dramatic, negative, second-order effects on operations that are
critical to our national security, such as operations in Afghanistan.
I believe Speaker Boehner's resolution addresses much of the
frustration shared by Members of this body. The resolution reinforces
provisions in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act
prohibiting the escalation of U.S. participation without express
authorization from Congress. This resolution requires the President to
clearly outline the strategic interests that justify intervention in
Libya, to explain how the operational means being employed will secure
them. It requires a prompt and transparent accounting of costs as well
as information regarding the capacity and intentions of the rebel
forces. This information is essential to allow Congress to execute its
constitutionally mandated oversight role of military operations.
Again, I fully agree that the administration has been disturbingly
dismissive of Congress's role in the authorization of military force.
But I also feel that passing this resolution is the most effective way
of holding the President accountable without sacrificing other vital
national interests that would be damaged by a precipitous withdrawal
from NATO operations.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do thank both Speaker Boehner and Representative Kucinich for
bringing these resolutions and bringing this issue to the floor because
I completely agree that this is an issue that Congress should debate,
discuss, and should ultimately express its opinion on. We have not done
that. We are now past 90 days that this mission has been going on in
Libya, and I feel we should have brought this up much sooner.
Now, I would prefer a much cleaner resolution that simply came out
and made a resolution of approval of the President's mission and of the
mission that we and NATO have undertaken in Libya and gave Members the
chance to vote it up or down. In that sense, Mr. Kucinich's resolution
is much more straightforward. It's a resolution of disapproval, but,
again, it gives us the opportunity to at least debate the issue and
express the will of Congress.
I do, however, oppose Mr. Boehner's resolution. I also oppose Mr.
Kucinich's resolution because I don't think we should pull away from
this mission, should pull out of what NATO is doing and the very
important work that is going on in Libya.
{time} 1140
Mr. Boehner's resolution doesn't do any of that, but it does rather
boldly state that the President has not made a case for the mission in
Libya, and I very strongly disagree with that assessment.
Now I will agree--and Mr. McKeon and I share the frustration--that
prior to the launching of this mission, there was an inadequate amount
of communication between the President and this Congress, indeed,
between the President and the American people, explaining the reasons
for getting into that mission; but since that time the President has
made it very clear why we went into Libya.
We had a unique situation. I do not believe the American military
should intervene in every conflict in every country. In fact, I don't
believe it should intervene in almost any of them. It takes a unique
set of circumstances to call for that intervention; and in Libya we
had, I believe, that unique set of circumstances.
Number one, we had broad international support. The U.N., NATO, the
Arab League all looked at that situation and said intervention was
necessary.
Number two, we had a clear humanitarian crisis. There was no doubt at
the time that we intervened that if we had not, Muammar Qadhafi would
have slaughtered his own people and reasserted control over Libya. He
made it clear that is what he was going to do. It was clear that the
people rising up for the legitimate opportunity to be heard in their
government did not have the power and the force to stop him. We did.
If we had not acted, there is no question that Muammar Qadhafi would
be back in charge of Libya, and we would bear at least some piece of
the responsibility--at least that is the way the rest of the world
would have looked at it. We in the United States had the power and the
force to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and chose not to act.
And that's one of the most critical elements in deciding whether or
not to intervene: Can we intervene in a successful way? Yes, there are
many countries throughout the world that face crises right now, in
Syria, in Sudan, in the Congo, a whole bunch of places. But most of
those places--in fact in all of those--there is no clear military
mission that we could accomplish and achieve. In Libya, there was. If
we intervened, we could stop Qadhafi from regaining control of his
entire country.
At the time we understood there was no guarantee that that would mean
that he would be driven from power immediately, but we could at least
stop him from doing that. It was a humanitarian crisis that our actions
could prevent. I think it made sense, and I think the President has
clearly articulated that.
So for the Congress to pass a resolution saying they have no earthly
idea what the President is doing in Libya simply means that they
haven't been paying attention for the last couple of months. It has
been made clear.
Now, I think it is appropriate that we ask the President to regularly
keep in touch with us, let us know where the mission is going. I
supported the resolution that said no ground troops in Libya. I think
that is a step too far. I don't think that is something that would
clearly be able to be accomplished militarily, so I do think that's
appropriate.
But the part of this resolution that I must oppose is the part that
says the President has made no national security case for why we should
be involved in Libya. I believe that he has, and I don't think we
should support a resolution saying otherwise. To have simply allowed
Libya to fall apart and not helped a people that we could clearly help,
that were legitimately calling for greater freedom and greater
opportunity, I think, would have been a mistake.
So I will oppose the Boehner resolution, and I will also oppose the
Kucinich resolution because I don't believe we should pull out of the
mission. But again, I thank all of those involved for bringing this
debate to the House floor so that we can have that debate so that we in
Congress can assert our authority and express our opinion on this very,
very important issue.
[[Page H4006]]
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Error and Land
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the Boehner resolution.
I am not here today to argue whether or not we should be in Libya.
That is an argument for another day. What I'm here today concerned with
is how we got into Libya, because I think that was a very important
precedent.
We went into Libya on March 19, Operation Odyssey Dawn. Just 12 days
later, a House committee met and Secretary Gates was there and I made
this statement: ``I'm among many people who feel that President Obama
has involved the United States in an unconstitutional and illegal war
in Libya.''
That same day I dropped H.R. 1323, which asked the President to find
offsets in non-defense discretionary spending to pay for the war in
Libya that was not authorized by the Congress because we have no money,
and I shouldn't ask my kids and my grandkids to pay for that war. This
is not the king's army. The power to move our Army into Libya is not
inherent in Commander in Chief. If it were, they would not have put in
article I, section 8, the responsibility of the Congress to declare
war.
This is an unconstitutional and illegal war. I think it sets a very
dangerous precedent, and I hope that we make that very clear in our
deliberations today.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boehner
resolution, but not because I feel that the President has stated a
correct policy for us being in Libya. I think he hasn't. All that
you'll hear on the floor today would lead to a policy that, if we adopt
it, would put us in war with five or six other countries tomorrow. But,
secondly, I don't support the fact of how we got in there because I
think clearly he didn't go through the proper procedures that we need
and didn't comply with the War Powers Act.
But, Madam Speaker, I also realize that regardless of that
disagreement he is the President of the United States; and as such he
has information about our national defense that many Members of
Congress don't have that we need to have shared with us.
And, second, Madam Speaker, as the President of the United States,
when it comes to foreign policy issues of this magnitude, we need to
give him some latitude to present that case and make it to this
Congress.
Madam Speaker, the Boehner resolution does that in a reasonable way
by giving him 14 days to present that information. But I believe, as
many people do, at the end of that 14 days, if he hasn't done so, if he
hasn't made that case, if he hasn't given us that information, we need
to be prepared to launch the subpoenas to get the information, or we
need to be back on this floor taking action to cut off the funding of
what's taking place there.
Madam Speaker, I hope we will support the Boehner resolution. I think
it's a reasonable approach and the correct approach.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon.
The President has not made the case for our military conflict in
Libya. He has told us who we are against, Qadhafi, but he has not told
us who we are for.
Secretary Gates has told us that we know very little about the
opposition; we know very little about the rebels. We do not know their
geopolitical view to their neighbors; we do not know their geopolitical
view to us. We do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. Are
we going to have atrocities? We do not know their ideology, we do not
know their preferred form of government, and we also do not know their
commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an issue
that is important in Libya.
The President has used United Nations approval of civil protection to
wage all-out war on Qadhafi without congressional approval or American
support. U.S. Admiral Locklear, in charge of the NATO operations
against Libya, recently stated that ground troops would be needed to
provide stability in Libya once the Qadhafi regime falls. Yesterday,
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he believes that the
President has the support of the majority of the Members of Congress. I
do not think so.
I offered a resolution, House Resolution 58, that would voice this
body's disapproval of the President's actions in Libya. Seventy-five
Members have co-sponsored this resolution. I believe it's important for
this body's voice to be heard.
The President has not provided us any information as to why we are
doing this, what a post-Qadhafi regime will look like in Libya, and
what will be our involvement. He is committing us to an extended
military action; and for Congress to be relevant, our voices need to be
heard.
I support the Speaker's resolution, and I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 58.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion.
The War Crimes Tribunal is about to prosecute Ratko Mladic--16 years
later, but they've finally gotten him. Why? Because he masterminded the
massacre of over 8,000 innocent civilians in Srebrenica. Serbia is now
a democratic ally, thanks to President Clinton's taking action against
congressional resistance.
We took the lead in the Balkans. It was a NATO effort, but I think we
all know that NATO could not have put an end to those massacres, that
genocide, had we not taken the lead. We had to act responsibly, and we
had to act in a timely and forceful manner.
Now, more recently there have been more than a dozen times since 2000
when the President has had to use American troops to intervene for
humanitarian reasons against terrorist threats, against whatever
endangered American civilians and troops.
To tie the President's hands in such situations, whether it be a
Republican or Democratic President, is wrong. We should not be doing
this. Of course we should be advising the President, working with the
President, whoever that President might be. And through our committee
leadership, we have any number of opportunities to do that. But to pass
legislation that is designed to tie the President's hands at a time of
military crisis is inconsistent with the legacy of this body, which is
to do what is necessary to protect America's interests at home and
abroad.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman from Virginia 1
additional minute.
{time} 1150
Mr. MORAN. With regard to Libya, we don't know what the outcome is
going to be in Libya. We do know that Muammar Qadhafi is a bad guy.
He's not an ally. He's not even reliable in terms of working with us in
any economic or foreign policy measure. This is an opportunity to
establish a government that we can work with. We can't control that
government, we're not sure of the outcome, but we know the people
putting their government together today want to work with the United
States. But they need American support, obviously under the umbrella of
NATO--that's NATO's purpose--but none of us should be so naive as to
think that NATO can operate independent of United States leadership.
That's just not the case. We have made the investment in our military
capability, we have established ourselves as the world's superpower,
and with that role comes a concomitant responsibility to use it when
and wherever necessary for the advancement of world peace and security.
Let's defeat this resolution.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
[[Page H4007]]
Mr. RIGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman McKeon for yielding, and
I rise in strong support of House Resolution 292.
I object to the U.S. military intervention in Libya, and my friend
and colleague from Virginia actually has far more confidence in the
intent and the purpose of the rebels than I do. I've heard in testimony
in the Armed Services Committee from multiple top leaders in our
country that we simply don't know enough about the rebels, and in my
view not one single provision of the War Powers Resolution has been met
that would legitimize the President's intervention in Libya.
Since President Obama announced the military strikes, Secretary of
State Gates admitted that Operation Odyssey Dawn ``was not a vital
national interest to the United States.''
This legislation, the Boehner resolution, reflects and meets the deep
obligation we have to support our troops and to uphold the
Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, the citizens of Mississippi's Fourth
Congressional District overwhelmingly do not support the President's
handling of Libya, and I agree with my constituents.
Our country, our military, and their families are fatigued by 10
years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House has yet to
clearly explain to the American people why we should commit more of our
precious blood and treasure to a third war.
Where is the leadership Americans expect and deserve when it comes to
committing our troops to foreign wars?
With reservation, I will support House Resolution 292--only because
the United States must honor our commitment to our friends and allies
engaged in the Libyan conflict. This resolution gives the President 14
days to explain to Congress the scope of our objectives in Libya. If he
fails, we should immediately withdraw our support from the conflict,
and as much as we care for our friends and allies, we cannot cast aside
the laws of our land.
Mr. President, the American people and this Congress have questions
and deserve answers. We cannot afford a failure in leadership when
Americans' lives are on the line.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. The President has said from the outset that
our role in this mission will be limited; limited but critical. We are
not committing troops, we are not committing the full force of the U.S.
military, but what we are contributing, as Mr. Moran said, is
absolutely critical to the success of the mission. We are supporting
our NATO allies in making sure that this mission is carried out in a
very limited and very critical way.
I just want to emphasize again that Muammar Qadhafi is not someone
who is in the best national security interests of the United States of
America. He has a long, long history of weapons of mass destruction, of
supporting terrorist groups, of committing terrorist acts against
United States citizens, and of in general being an unstable and
destabilizing figure. When the people of Libya decided to rise up to
throw him out, it was a very appropriate thing for them to do.
Now we all wish that Mr. Qadhafi would have gone quietly and simply--
that certainly would have been the easier way to go--but he didn't. And
to protect those people who have legitimate aspirations for a better
government, we needed to intervene militarily to assist.
Now I think in this instance the best thing about this is we were not
alone. The Arab League, the United Nations, NATO, took the lead. There
is a great deal of instability throughout the Middle East and that is
unquestionably in the national security interests of the United States
of America to do whatever we can to try and reduce that instability and
make sure that we have friends, allies and also governments that
legitimately represent the aspirations of their people. That is one of
the greatest problems we've had. We have supported governments in the
past in the Middle East who didn't have the support of their people. We
need not just the support of governments, we need the support of the
people in that region. This is a critical opportunity to gain that
support. I believe that's clearly in the national security interest of
the American people.
So, I do not agree with the gentleman from Ohio's resolution in
saying that the President has not articulated a case. He has. We in the
House should vote whether we approve it or not, but I don't think it is
correct to say that the case has not been made. Let's have a vote in
this body, as we will, on the Kucinich resolution, of whether or not to
support what is going on there or not, but we should not simply be
asking the President for something he has already provided.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Armed
Services Committee, Mr. Young.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I rise in support, as so many of my colleagues
have, of House Resolution 292, because this Congress is a coequal
branch of government, and we must never be a quiet coequal branch,
especially on military matters.
When the U.S. sends its sons and daughters into harm's way, it must
only be done to protect America's vital national security interests and
where there is a clear plan to advance those interests.
We know our Nation is insolvent, with a national debt of over $14
trillion. Our troops are already overextended, we're hearing, in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the administration is talking
about defense spending cuts at the very same time it's piling on this
new mission, a humanitarian mission, a narrow humanitarian mission,
we're told, on top of all our other commitments.
Now what gives? This Congress needs to be heard. Our President has
failed to properly define what vital national security interests
justify this military intervention, and with this resolution, we give
him 14 days to do so. Sadly and ironically, by becoming involved in
Libya, our NATO alliance, which does remain a vitally important
national security interest, may well have been put at risk.
This Congress will be heard.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, regarding H. Con.
Res. 51 and H. Res. 292, both resolutions have imperfections. I
strongly support the sentiment behind the Kucinich resolution but do
not think it would be responsible to compel action in such a short time
period. Regrettably, the Boehner resolution accomplishes little.
However, it makes a clear statement that I agree with, which is that
American troops should not be on the ground in Libya.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Boehner
resolution on Libya. As a combat veteran myself, I am extremely
concerned any time that we commit to using our armed forces to support
military actions, and I believe that close scrutiny of our country's
involvement in the NATO-led operation is essential.
I understand the frustration being expressed by many here today about
their level of consultation in the decision to commence military
operations in Libya, but, as my colleague from the Armed Services
Committee Adam Smith noted, Congressional leaders were invited to a
White House briefing and substantial information has been provided to
Congress since then.
Based on my personal experience as Chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, the Obama Administration's level of consultation with
Congress on these sorts of issues is much more extensive and timely
than during the Bush Administration.
I, myself, had additional questions which were not fully addressed by
this week's briefings, and, while my colleagues were debating the rule
for this resolution, I simply called the White House to request the
information demanded in this resolution. Much of the information was
provided immediately, with the rest due back in the next few days. And
when I asked the White House about requests for information they had
received on operations in Libya, they told me they had responded to all
Congressional requests for briefings.
[[Page H4008]]
Debating the bill before us may provide a convenient opportunity for
opponents of the President to make political statements, but it does so
at the expense of our troops who are actively engaged in combat
operations. This resolution threatens our critical NATO alliance and
emboldens our enemies.
The Boehner resolution--like the Kucinich measure which we are also
debating today--potentially sends the message to our NATO allies that
the United States does not stand by its commitments. At a time when we
are relying more and more on our NATO allies to support the joint
mission in Afghanistan, now is not the time to turn our back on NATO.
Beyond straining relations with our closest allies, this resolution
sends an even more dangerous message to Colonel Qaddafi. This
resolution is effectively telling a despotic dictator, who has murdered
and terrorized his own citizens, that he can simply wait out the
military effort to protect the Libyan people because the United States
will not hold true to its word.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, as a combat veteran, and
as an American, I will continue to ask the hard questions of our
military and civilian leaders about military operations over Libya. But
I will not vote for a measure that I believe threatens the security and
safety of our country and undermines our President.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, more than two months after stating
that our military action in Libya would be over in ``days, not weeks,''
President Obama has yet to explain to the American people what our
mission in Libya is, how it will be conducted, and when it will be
completed. He has failed to explain how our military involvement in
Libya fits with our policy interests in the Middle East and northern
Africa. Most importantly, he has ignored his constitutional
responsibility to uphold federal law by choosing not to acquire
authorization from Congress for our involvement there.
That is why I cosponsored Mr. Turner's resolution disapproving of the
President's actions, and that is why I joined my House colleagues today
in demanding action from the President.
The President must follow the law and seek approval for this military
action from Congress. In doing so, he must explain some basic facts,
such as whether the removal of Moammar Qaddafi is part of the mission,
how stability will be promoted in the region if Qaddafi is removed from
power, and who among the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya should be
supported in the event that he is removed.
Instead of following the clear path of seeking congressional approval
as outlined in federal law, the President unilaterally escalated our
military efforts in Libya after assuring us they would be scaled back.
Now, some in the Obama administration are saying we should put boots on
the ground in support of further NATO actions. This is the opposite of
what the President promised and contrary to the will of the House.
Congress appropriately shows a certain deference to the commander-in-
chief when it comes to national security decisions, as we must always
have the ability to quickly respond to threats to our sovereignty and
our interests around the world. Further, Congress must not direct troop
movements or set timelines for our military operations, as such
decisions should be left to our highly skilled commanders on the
ground. But our deference is contingent upon the President respecting
the Founders' intent for the primary role of Congress in providing for
our defense and security needs. It does not change the fact that the
President is obliged to seek congressional approval and to explain how
our mission in Libya is vital to our national security.
The brave men and women in our armed forces, as always, are
performing their duties with the greatest expertise and professionalism
of any military in the world. The issue at hand is the failure of the
President to seek congressional approval required by law, and the
failure of the President to tell Congress and the American people the
details of our mission.
The American people will always stand with those who seek freedom and
self-determination. Today's vote reaffirms that it is vital the
President obey the rule of law in doing so.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, like many members of this body, I have
been outraged by the President's failure to comply with the War Powers
Act and to define the U.S. mission in Libya. This Congress must not
neglect its responsibility and authority regarding the use of force in
Libya, and the debate we are having today is long overdue.
I think most Americans, including myself, agree that seeing Moammar
Gadhafi and his regime of thugs removed from power would be a good
thing. However, I think most Americans, including myself, also feel
strongly that American forces should not be committed to this kind of
mission without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a country where the executive branch
and the legislative branch share the responsibility regarding the use
of force. President Obama has not sought the consent of the Congress in
terms of involving American forces in Libya and that is why we are
having this debate today.
I rise in support of H. Res. 292. This resolution demands that the
President provide answers about our involvement in the conflict in
Libya, including the President's justification for not seeking
Congressional authorization for this action. The resolution gives the
President 14 days to respond to this request. The President should take
very seriously this resolution. And our leadership in Congress should
be vigilant to demand a full and clear response from the President.
This resolution also gives adequate notice to NATO and our other allies
of the concerns of the House before the House takes further action. The
further action must take note of the President's failure to comply with
the War Powers Act and notwithstanding that fact must also take note of
our Nation's foreign policy interests and efforts to combat terrorism.
H. Res. 292 is an important first step in restoring the balance that
our Founding Fathers envisioned, that our legislative and executive
branches share the responsibility regarding the use of U.S. force.
However, the action taken today should not be the last step. In 14
days, the House of Representatives should reconvene to evaluate our
continued involvement in Libya. We must then make hard decisions about
the operation in Libya and the role of the United States in this
conflict. I hope my colleagues will join me in remaining vigilant and
demanding accountability from the White House.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H. Con. Res. 51, ``Directing the President, Pursuant to Section (c)
of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces
from Libya,'' I support the War Powers Resolution however I cannot
support a resolution which requires the President to withdraw all
United States Armed forces within 15 days of its adoption.
As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary
Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United
States. This Concurrent Resolution is a reminder to the American people
that we must firmly hold true to our constitutional duties. We have the
power to ensure the Executive does not overstep its bounds. As Members
of Congress we can exercise our power through appropriation, the
appointment process, exercising oversight over the Executive, enactment
legislation, or even establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse
of power by the administration.
Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers had long argued
about which branch of government has the power to decide whether the
nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches has
not always taken place.
In 1973, the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) was passed
over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures for
Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S.
Armed Forces into hostilities.
Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause
which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the
Constitution in the Government of the United States . . .''.
The policy behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander
in Chief, to deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised
only pursuant to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory
authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.''
Pursuant to this authority, the President ``in every possible
instance'' shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed
Forces, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces
remain in hostile situations.
As we consider the War Powers Resolution, we must also consider facts
surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya and the
consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan
people.
I believe in the Constitution and the importance of maintaining the
power of Congress in asserting when international conflicts warrant
U.S. military involvement. I call upon the President to issue a report
detailing the current status of the United States military forces in
Libya within the next 30 days.
We must not forget the bloodshed that continues to take place in
Libya. The people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for
democracy. This conflict began in Libya four months ago when Colonel
Gaddafi failed to do what was right for his country and its people.
Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt
[[Page H4009]]
the painful consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil
liberties were infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of
all, many Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed
under the command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a
conflict with a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were
authorized by the hand of the Libyan leader himself.
The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated and continues to be
encouraged by the very man charged with protecting the Libyan people.
The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside help. The question
is no longer whether or not Libya is in a critical condition. I call on
my fellow Members of Congress to continue to condemn the violence
taking place in Libya today.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the
will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya
faced. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests
of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi chose to remain steadfast to the status
quo--to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of
blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake.
The reality of the situation is this: it was Gaddafi's refusal to
contemplate the circumstances in Libya that led to the unnecessary loss
of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we deliberate the
role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of
innocent people.
We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight
for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life.
Gaddafi has a long record of bloodshed and blood continues to run in
the streets of Libya. We cannot stand by and do nothing, and America
cannot do this alone. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United
Nations, the African Union, and other world groups to stop the
slaughter and violence against the people of Libya.''
As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in
calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight
for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
I stand with the people of Libya fighting for peace and freedom. It
is clear that NATO has taken the Lead in protecting the Libyan People.
FACTS ON NATO
For over two months NATO-led airstrikes in Libya have inflicted
serious damage upon the Qaddafi regime's war machine, yet loyalist
forces continue to demonstrate cohesiveness and operational superiority
over besieged rebel forces. Still, some analysts suggest the stalemate
is now yielding to a war of attrition favoring the rebels. Rebel combat
skills have improved, as has their arsenal (which now reportedly
includes vehicle-mounted antiaircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and
mortars). During the week of May 11th, rebel forces succeeded in
capturing Misratah, which had been the scene of the heaviest fighting
since the conflict began. With control of the air and sea ports, rebels
have developed a means to resupply and reinforce Misratah from the east
while simultaneously supporting resistance in the west. Meanwhile fuel
shortages in regime-held areas are taking a toll, as demonstrated by an
attack over the weekend against reporters during a state-supervised
trip to the Tunisian border. Fierce fighting continues across the
Nafusa mountain range, which cuts across the desert south of Tripoli to
the western border with Tunisia. At least four Grad rockets fired from
Libya on May 16th landed in Tunisia near the Dahiba border crossing.
Tunisian authorities have warned that it will report Libya to the
Security Council if loyalist forces continue firing ammunition into
Tunisia.
As rebels consolidate recent gains, NATO has proven to be the
equalizing force. NATO have targeted major command centers near Tripoli
and Brega and surface-to-air missile launchers in Sirte and Al Khums.
On May 19th NATO destroyed at least eight naval ships after it was
verified that the Libyan navy had tried to mine the rebel-controlled
port of Misratah. That same day NATO blocked a Maltese-flagged ship
from delivering a consignment of fuel intended for regime forces.
Airstrikes against a compound in Tripoli on May 1st reportedly killed
Qaddafi's youngest son Saif al-Arab and three grandchildren. Direct
lines of communication have been established between NATO and
opposition headquarters in Bengahzi, thereby enhancing NATO's
operational effectiveness. Previously, opposition forces have faced
accidental strikes by NATO aircraft after failing to identify
themselves and shifting to the use of armored vehicles without
communicating with the coalition.
The NATO air mission has conducted nearly 8000 sorties, including
3025 strike sorties, since assuming control of the operation on March
23rd. The NATO maritime component has conducted more than 1000 hailings
in the embargo area, boarded 48 ships, and turned away 7 ships.
The African Union continues to press for a peace deal that was
accepted by Qaddafi but rejected by the opposition because it would
leave Qaddafi in power. Turkey also has proposed a roadmap to establish
an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, secure humanitarian aid
corridors, and advance ``a political process for a transition. However,
Turkey has not yet provided an implementation strategy other than
making it clear that Qaddafi must go.
After the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, engaged in peace
talks with Qaddafi most of the world believed the bloodshed would end.
Today, it is clear that Qaddafi is going to continue to fight to stay
in power.
As it stands, the United States already has authorized a drawdown in
nonlethal defense articles and services valued at $25 million to assist
the Transitional National Council (TNC) and an additional $53.5 million
in humanitarian assistance. It was announced on May 5th that the
Administration now is seeking legislation to allow them to ``vest,'' or
confiscate, ``assets and property held by the government of Libya,
including the Central Bank of Libya, in the jurisdiction of the United
States and invest all or part of that in any agency or individual
designated by the President to provide humanitarian relief and protect
civilians in Libya.'' The United States currently holds $33 billion in
frozen Libyan assets and property, of which $150 million has been
proposed for vesting. Senator Kerry has suggested to reporters that he
will soon introduce the requested legislation.
We can not stand by and watch as the people of Libya suffer. We need
and must provide humanitarian aid. Americans have always come to aid of
their neighbors in times of crisis. Thus far, the United States has
provided over $53.5 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Libya
while the European Commission has provided nearly $55.4 million. On May
18, the UN launched a revised Regional Flash Appeal for the Libyan
Crisis, increasing the appeal from $310 million to $407.8 million. To
date, the UN has received $175 million in contributions or 43%
toward the appeal and an additional $106 million for humanitarian
activities not listed in the appeal. The UN evacuated its international
staff from Tripoli on May 1st but maintains a presence in Benghazi.
Humanitarian access inside Libya remains severely constrained. Of
particular concern are the besieged western towns of Zintan, Nalut,
Zawiyah and Yifran.
Over 807,000 people have fled to neighboring Chad, Egypt, Niger,
Algeria and Tunisia since the start of the crisis. Additionally, up to
200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Brega, Ras Lanuf, and
Ajdabiya are in eastern Libya.
We must continue to remember the context upon which we are currently
operating in the world today. The Middle East is finally awaking to
democracy and freedom. Advancing these objectives also advances our
nation's security.
FACTS
The people of Libya have suffered since the overthrow of King Idriss
in 1969. Under the oppressive Qaddafi regime, basic human rights have
been terminated, and too many lives have been lost.
Since assuming power, Colonel Qaddafi has ignored the needs of the
Libyan people, choosing to train other oppressive leaders in
intelligence and weaponry. Qaddafi has given money to dictators such as
Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor, and intervened in foreign wars
instead of investing in education and infrastructure for the betterment
of his own people.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently
reported the lack of free press and free speech in Libya. The State
controls the media and speaking out against Qaddafi or his government
is not only illegal, it is also deadly. Qaddafi and his army executed
activists who opposed the government and broadcasted their deaths on
television.
Qaddafi was particularly intolerant of women and other minorities.
Foreign Policy reports he established ``social rehabilitation'' centers
where women who were designated financially or morally vulnerable were
detained indefinitely. Homosexuality was deemed criminal, and punished
with up to five years in jail.
Since the outbreak of civil war in February, Qaddafi has shut down
Internet communication in Libya, and abused and detained foreign
journalists covering the rebellion.
The International Federation for Human Rights has reported that
commanders in the Libyan army executed hundreds of lower ranking
soldiers for refusing to fire on protestors or defend Qaddafi.
Colonel Qaddafi has utilized snipers, helicopters gunships,
mercenaries and gangs of hired thugs to harm his own people throughout
the course of the protests. Rebels taking to the streets demanding free
elections were injured and killed.
Because of the severe communication restrictions and limited access
of journalists, estimates are extremely varied as to how many Libyans
have been killed in this conflict. Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner
for Human Rights at the United Nations estimates thousands have been
killed or injured. The Libyan
[[Page H4010]]
National Transitional Council puts the death toll around 8,000.
I am outraged at the story of Eman al-Obeidy who had the courage to
report being raped by soldiers in the employ of Qaddafi. Because this
young woman spoke out about the brutal crime she endured, she lives in
fear of the repercussions. Ms. Al-Obeidy's story is a harsh and violent
reflection of Qaddafi's regime and the somber reality that rape is a
symptom of war. This violent sexual assault must be investigated, and
Ms. Al-Obeidy's safety must be ensured. This brutal crime is further
evidence of the cruelty of Colonel Qaddafi's regime. In addition, to
killing thousands of innocent civilians, the Libyan government is also
allowing violent discriminatory actions to be freely committed against
the women of Libya. This is unacceptable, and is strong evidence that
humanitarian efforts must be increased. I call on the Allied Nations to
ensure Ms. Al-Obeidy's safe passage out of Libya. Further, I call on
the United Nations to condemn these actions, and work to prevent their
future occurrence.
The Red Cross reports dangerously low amounts of medical supplies and
food, as well as a refugee crisis as thousands flee the violence.
There should be an increased emphasis on diplomacy. On May 20th it
was reported that Shukri Ghanem, head of Libya's National Oil Company
and former Prime Minister, had defected to Tunisia. On May 19th
Secretary of State Clinton asserted that Qaddafi's wife Sophia and
daughter Aicha had fled to Tunisia, though Tunisian authorities later
denied the report. On May 9th it was reported that Egyptian authorities
had placed Qaddafi's cousin Ahmed Gaddaf al-Dam under house arrest and
planned to seize his assets before deporting him to Benghazi. On May
4th, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court announced that
he was seeking the arrest of three unnamed senior officials in the
Libyan regime for war crimes and crimes against humanity. On May 3rd,
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded that Qaddafi step
down after attacks against foreign embassies in Tripoli forced Turkey
to suspend diplomatic operations. Libyan diplomats subsequently were
expelled from France and the UK. On May 2nd, Switzerland reported that
the country had seized over $411 million in Libyan assets. The United
States, the European Union, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and other
countries previously enacted targeted sanctions against Qaddafi and his
key supporters.
The Founders distributed the decision to go to war between the two
political branches to assure that the decision would be made carefully.
The founding generation experienced the hardship of several wars and
they knew war's human and financial costs. They understood that a
strong executive who is already given the title ``Commander in Chief,''
might flex the country's military strength injudiciously. Giving
Congress the essential power to declare war allows heads to cool,
alternatives to be considered, and makes certain there is consensus if
the country is called to fight. Therefore I voted against the
meaningless H. Res. 292 that has no basis in law in order to be
consistent in my support of Congress' authority to declare war and the
War Powers Resolution (driven by the Vietnam War). I voted yes on H.
Con. Res. 51 to allow the President to go to the Senate. The Resolution
failed and I hope the President will approach Congress and consult so
we can bring peace and an end to violence together.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner
resolution, H. Res. 292 and also to announce my opposition to the
resolution offered by Mr. Kucinich.
Let me be clear, I will never jeopardize support for our troops, and
I will always maintain the proper level of deference and respect due
the Commander in Chief in matters of war. But I do not believe the
President of the United States has the authority to take America to war
without congressional approval where our security and vital national
interests are not directly threatened.
The President told the American people in his address to the Nation
on March 28, 2011, that it would be a mistake to broaden our mission.
He said, ``We went down that road in Iraq.'' Now, more than seventy-
five days since hostilities began in Libya, it has become all too clear
that the road we are currently taking is quite different from that we
took in Iraq.
In Iraq, we had a clear objective. We had congressional bipartisan
approval in both Houses, international support, and through trial and
the sacrifice of blood and treasure, we are now on the edge of victory.
Here in Libya, there is no clear objective, no congressional approval,
and uncertain international support. We are on a different road.
Speaker Boehner's resolution before the House today, H. Res. 292,
will prevent the President from committing American ground forces in
Libya and requires the Administration to finally justify why it
committed our military resources in Libya without seeking consultation
from Congress. When passed, this resolution will also force the
Administration to report to the Congress the political and military
objectives regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Let me also speak to the resolution of the other gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Kucinich. I have never believed it to be wise to tell the enemy
when you will quit fighting. More significantly, it cites the
constitutionally dubious provisions of the War Powers Resolution and I
cannot support it.
In closing, let me just say that history has taught us that America
has succeeded only when we have chosen to send our men and women into
combat with a clear objective to win. In this instance, where the
Administration has not demonstrated how American military involvement
advances our national security interests and where the President has
failed to provide the American people with a compelling reason to
commit our Armed Forces, there is no clear objective to win.
The Boehner resolution will force the Obama Administration to bring
its case to the American public before further committing our men and
women in Libya and I urge its immediate passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________