[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 92 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4534-H4540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 68, AUTHORIZING LIMITED USE OF
ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2278,
LIMITING USE OF FUNDS FOR ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 328 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 328
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 68) authorizing the limited use of the United States
Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya, if
called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or
her designee. All points of order against consideration of
the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate, 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2278) to limit
the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect
to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, if
called up by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or
his designee. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 328 provides a closed rule
for consideration of H.R. 2278 and H.J. Res. 68. The rule provides a
total of 3 hours of debate in this Chamber on this vitally important
issue of U.S. military operations in Libya. The rule also provides the
minority with two separate motions to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, it was in this week in 1788, June 21, 1788, that the
United States ratified its Constitution, that Constitution that still
serves us so well today. In that Constitution, our Framers made clear
that the power of the purse belongs here and here alone, here in the
people's House, here on Capitol Hill; and that Constitution made clear
that the power to declare war lies here and here alone.
On June 3 of this year by a vote of 268-145 the House of
Representatives passed a resolution asking the President to make clear
what his intentions are in Libya, asking the President to come and
consult with Congress, to get Congress' permission, to seek our
authority to prosecute those hostilities in Libya.
We have received some information from the White House since then. We
have gotten a letter from the White House since then. We even have
classified documents since then. But what we have not had since then,
Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the American people to make their
voice heard on this important issue, because, after all, this isn't an
issue for Congress, because as a Congressman, it is not about my voice.
It is about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that I represent
that I bring here to Congress, and those people's voices have yet to be
heard on this Libya issue.
{time} 0920
Operation Odyssey Dawn is in full operation now, since the month of
March, and the people's voice has still not been heard. But today, Mr.
Speaker, the Rules Committee, as one of the longest-standing committees
in this U.S. House of Representatives, first constituted in 1789, the
Rules Committee is making that opportunity available with these two
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, my hope is that the people's voice will be heard today;
that in this hour upon hour of debate that we have today, these two
very different choices for where this country goes, that the American
people will for the first time have their voice heard on the question
of Libya.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we come back in July, we're going to
take up the FY 2012 defense bill. In fact, we'll take it up tonight and
start considering amendments when we return. We'll again have an
opportunity to have our voice heard. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is an
entire gradation of options that we have here. Are we going to declare
war on Libya? Are we going to allow the President to continue doing
what he's doing in Libya? Are we going to shut down the funding for
troops on the ground on Libya? Are we going to shut down funding for
Libya altogether? These are the questions that the Rules Committee has
made available today and 2 weeks from now so that this House will be
able to have its voice heard.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time,
Mr. Speaker.
We're considering matters of war and peace today. On Sunday, our
Nation will have been engaged in military action in Libya for 100 days.
The actions taken by the President have a grave impact on the
constitutional role of Congress and the role of the United States
abroad. Taken together, these are among the most important issues that
we as Members of Congress will ever consider. These are the very
debates that scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades
to come.
Given these fundamental issues, the American people deserve the full
and thorough consideration that should be afforded to all legislation
introduced in this body--with committee hearings
[[Page H4535]]
and debate, followed by an open and regular process, and a thoughtful
debate by the whole House.
In 1990, when I was first here, the body considered a resolution
regarding matters of war and peace. At the request of President George
H.W. Bush, both Chambers of the United States Congress engaged in a
fierce debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in
the Persian Gulf. I have vivid memories of those debates long into the
night, with issues being debated in committees, marked up by both
parties, brought to the House floor for a final debate before the
American public. On that particular measure concerning the Persian
Gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 Members spoke. It was one of
the most thorough airings of our constitutional obligations that I have
witnessed.
In exchanges that can be publicly accessed today, Members of the
House and our colleagues in the Senate engaged in an intelligent and
enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, the dangers, and
necessities of passing a resolution authorizing American troops to
engage in military force overseas. There were strong views on both
sides of the aisle, but these views were accompanied by an overriding
sense of duty to our country--a belief that Congress would reach a
decision based upon the thoughtful and prudent vote of its Members and
a reflection of a common interest of all its citizens.
As historians look back on the debate over the Persian Gulf War, they
can clearly see a vibrant democracy--a democracy that is engaged in
robust debate and a democracy earnestly working together for the best
interest of its people. Two decades later, we stand in a room imbued
with this history--that debate took place right here--but we avoid the
robust debates that preceded us here today. Indeed, the way in which
today's measures are being debated shame the dignity, history, and
tradition of this body.
Today's resolutions about our actions in Libya have been rushed
through the House of Representatives. They were written behind closed
doors and received neither committee hearings nor committee markups.
The two resolutions are being considered under a single closed rule
following an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday
afternoon. The process by which these measures proceeded through the
Rules Committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that
we're being asked to vote for here today.
Late Tuesday night--10 o'clock, I believe--we were given two
resolutions for an emergency meeting on Wednesday. They were added as
emergency items to our afternoon meeting. When we got to the Rules
Committee, they had been pulled from the agenda. It wasn't until 9 p.m.
Wednesday that we received the text of H.R. 2278. Yesterday, we were
notified that the Rules Committee would meet on this new and unvetted
bill, along with one of the original two resolutions, less than 3 hours
before the meeting began. We now stand on the House floor being asked
to vote for a closed rule. We will then be asked to consider two
resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust
the measures to reflect the true will of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I regret the shameful way this important debate has been
rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will
look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the
legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future
Members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how
their forebearers shaped the fate of this country.
In the case of the resolution of the Persian Gulf, they'll say how
our democratic process thrived, whether one agreed with the resolution
or not. Shamefully, in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a
dysfunctional democratic process, one that has committed a disservice
to the American people, to the dignity of the House of Representatives,
and the future of the United States, by avoiding a true debate on one
of the most important issues of our time.
For these very reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
today's rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to a gentleman who has great reverence for the United States
Constitution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this rule, although I have a lot of complaints
about how we deal with the issue of war. This is a debate that should
have gone on 4 months ago, before the war was started. And if we had
done this properly, we wouldn't be bringing this up quickly today. No
committee work, no discussion, no chance for amendment. But,
nevertheless, I will support the rule because at least we get a chance
to talk a little bit about what's going on in Libya.
We have two resolutions that will come up under this rule. The first
resolution, generally, I understand most individuals aren't too keen on
this, because it's a literal endorsement--a rather explicit
endorsement--of the war, so obviously I oppose H.J. Res. 68. But my
greatest concern is about H.R. 2278. The way I read this resolution is
that it essentially grants the same authority that we grant in the
first Resolution because we say that no funds can be used--it denies
the use of funds. But how can you deny the use of appropriated funds
when they're using funds that weren't appropriated? It's so redundant.
The funds were never appropriated. So, yes, it's a good statement. You
don't continue to be illegal, is what we're saying.
What I'm concerned about are the exceptions. All the exceptions are
for the things that they're already doing, like search and rescue,
intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, surveillance, refueling,
operations planning, and doing everything except pulling the trigger.
So we're legalizing the current war.
I believe that H.R. 2278 is the first time that we in the Congress
are making a statement of granting authority to the President to pursue
this particular war. I am in strong opposition to that resolution as
well, although I understand the other side of the argument because it
says ``denial of funds.'' The author of the resolution said the reason
why we have the exception is to protect the integrity of our contract
or agreement with NATO. Well, in the resolution it says we have to stop
the funding because we don't want to support NATO's war.
So it's totally inconsistent. Makes no sense whatsoever. But it
reminds me of the War Powers resolution. After the Vietnam War, we
didn't want to get into that kind of war any more, so Congress, in its
infinite wisdom, with good intentions, it designs the War Powers
resolution, which legalized war for 90 days. That's part of the reason
why we're here. We're worried about 90 days. But here we're going into
the fourth month dealing with the War Powers resolution.
{time} 0930
There is a simple solution to all of this, and that is to obey the
Constitution. Don't allow our Presidents to go to war without a
declaration of war, and we wouldn't be facing this problem of this
debate that actually gets a little bit silly on restraining the
President. Yes, we should. We should exert ourselves. We have the
prerogatives, and we have the obligations. We have avoided it. It's
time to stand up for the rule of law.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hastings resolution and in
support of the Rooney resolution.
This morning's paper, The New York Times, says that this is a
dangerous resolution because it would allow the financing only for
American surveillance, search and rescue missions, planning and aerial
refueling. It would halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air
defenses, and it would damage the Nation's credibility in its
leadership of NATO.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Nation's credibility--that is to say
its promise to go to war if backed by the President and not by
Congress--ought to be damaged. We have been sliding for 70 years into a
situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about
whether to go to war or not, and the President is becoming an absolute
monarch. We must put a stop to
[[Page H4536]]
that right now if we don't want to become an empire instead of a
Republic. This country was set up to be a Republic where the basic
questions of war and peace are supposed to be answered by this
Congress. Because of the exigencies of the Cold War, if the bombers are
coming over the Pole, you don't have time to call Congress. We lost a
lot of that power. We ceded it to the President.
But in a situation such as Libya, whether the reasons for going there
are good or ill, the fact is there was no imminent threat to the United
States, and the Secretary of Defense said that. There was plenty of
time to negotiate with the Arab League, and there was plenty of time to
go to the U.N. There should have been time to have, not consultations
with Congress, but the authorization from Congress. In the absence of
that authorization, we have to put our foot down now and say ``no.'' If
foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military
intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good. That's a
good thing.
The power of the Presidency--and I'm not talking about this
President--as was said by Charles James Fox in 1780, the power of the
Crown, in this case the power of the President, has increased, is
increasing and ought to be diminished. This country's power to go to
war or not must reside here except in extreme and urgent emergencies.
It is time to put our foot down now by passing that resolution.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time.
I rise today in support of this rule and of H.R. 2278, a bill to
prohibit funds for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya except
for operations involving search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, and operational planning.
In 2007, then the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama,
confidently proclaimed to the Boston Globe this comment: ``The
President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve
stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.'' However, now
that he is not attacking political opponents, that stance has proven
inconvenient, prompting one of his many, many flip-flops, such as his
vote opposing to raise the debt limit.
Regardless of one's position on the constitutional powers of the
President as Commander in Chief or Congress' authority to declare war,
the legislative branch unquestionably yields the power of the purse.
This bill represents a proper exercise of that power, pure and simple.
The bill does not leave our military personnel in dangerous
circumstances without the funds or supplies they need. It does not
require a precipitous withdrawal since, without a ground presence,
there is nowhere from which to withdraw. The bill simply denies U.S.
taxpayer funding for what the President calls a ``kinetic activity,''
but what the world recognizes as an ongoing bombing campaign in Libya.
It is for these reasons and many more that I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and to support H.R. 2278.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are later this morning going to be engaged in one of
the most important tasks of Congress, and that is what to do about war.
Unfortunately, the administration--and I think they would agree to
this--didn't adequately engage Congress in the process running up to
the beginning of the Libya conflict and didn't sufficiently engage
during the course of it. We are now in a position where we will be
making some decisions today about how we want this Nation to proceed,
whether we want to proceed with a full-on war or with limited or much
more limited activity with regard to the support of NATO in the Libya
fight.
Unfortunately, all of this is now being rushed upon us here on the
last day just before the break for the 4th of July. The amount of time
to debate this on the floor is far too limited. It would have been our
preference on the Democratic side to have had a more full discussion
along the lines that the gentlelady from New York discussed in her
opening comments--a full-on discussion about how we are to proceed. We
are basically going to have two options, both of them with inadequate
discussion. I guess we're down to that point now where we have no more
alternative but to use the 1 hour, so here we are debating this issue
at this moment.
For me, there is a very important principle that was enunciated by
the United Nations, which is the obligation to defend and protect. That
was the basic rationale for this country moving forward with the Libya
operation. Yes, the President should have come to us early. He should
have come to us at the very beginning and allowed Congress to carry out
its constitutional obligations, ``yes'' or ``no.'' But here we are. The
obligation or the right or the necessity to defend is very important.
That's why we're there. We need to provide the President with the
necessary powers to carry out that obligation in a very limited period
of time. We'll see that this afternoon or later this morning with the
Hastings amendment.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has the
opportunity today to actually have a serious debate on the war with
Libya.
Like most Americans, I am disappointed in any argument that says we
are not at war. I believe that argument shows contempt for the
Constitution and for the executive's coequal branch of government--the
United States Congress.
How can this not be war? If another country launched aggressive air
strikes against the United States, you'd better believe we'd consider
it an act of war. Does anyone remember Pearl Harbor or 9/11? We
certainly considered those acts of war against our country. To say that
our bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ``hostilities''
flies in the face of common sense.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation can't afford a third war. The ones we are
already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally. This Congress
must reassert our power of the purse and not fund an unauthorized war.
Today, we must send a clear message that the American people and this
Congress will not support perpetual war.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Lawrenceville for his typical
stellar management of this very important rule; but I have to say, Mr.
Speaker, that it saddens me greatly that we are here on the House
floor, dealing with this. We have been in the midst of what has been a
celebration, a celebration as described as the Arab Spring.
We saw a few months ago a young merchant in a small town in Tunisia
very, very distraught over the fact that a government official came and
took his scale away from him and took it to the government office.
{time} 0940
He went back and asked for it, and when he made that request, he was
denied it. He basically said he'd had enough, and so this young man
chose to set himself afire in the middle of the town square in this
tiny town in Tunisia.
Now, as we all know, that launched what has become known as the Arab
Spring. The Economist magazine very appropriately said that one of the
great developments that the Arab Spring has wrought is that we have now
seen those so-called ``barbarians'' in the Arab world, in the Muslim
world, move towards self-determination. Many people in the West and in
other parts of the world very arrogantly said there's no way in the
world that those people could possibly make great strides towards
political pluralism and development of the rule of law, self-
determination, but, in fact, we saw--beginning with this one very sad
act--people throughout the Arab world in not only Tunisia, but Egypt,
Bahrain and, yes,
[[Page H4537]]
in Libya, demonstrate their frustration over authoritarian
dictatorships that were actually undermining the potential of the
people of each of these countries.
So that's why, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that we are here
today doing what it is that we're doing. Why? Because we should be in
the midst of a celebration, a celebration of these very bold and
dynamic steps that are being taken throughout the Arab world. And why
is it that we're here? We're here because of what has been described by
Members on both sides of the aisle--and I just heard my friend from New
York describe the actions of this Presidency--as being the act of a
monarch.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to look at recent
history. If we go back to the 2006 election, the Republicans lost the
majority in large part because of the war in Iraq. Democrats and
Republicans alike acknowledge that.
There's an important distinction that needs to be made. If one goes
back and looks at the action that was taken by President Bush, he chose
to come to this Congress. He wanted the support of the American people
through their elected Representatives and Senators to be behind his
effort. We all know that he reached out to the United Nations, built a
coalition, and there was lots of controversy. There, to this day,
continues to be controversy. But the Congress was involved in that
process, as has been the case in many instances in the past, not every
instance, but many instances in the past.
We know, as my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina,
just said, that President Obama when he was a candidate, United States
Senator, was very critical of President Bush. We know that his campaign
for the Presidency in large part centered around this notion of
bringing home the troops, and we had his speech the before night last
on dealing with Afghanistan and his notion that we were going to bring
these efforts to an end.
I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as we, I said, should be in the
midst of celebrating the Arab Spring, we probably would have had, when
one thinks about the actions that took place in Libya, we probably
would have had, Mr. Speaker, pretty broad support here in the Congress
for the action that was taken by the President if there had been an
early authorization of this.
Now, it is, as I said, very sad that we are here now because I think
Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that this has been very,
very poorly handled. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's any more
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say that as we look at this, Mr. Speaker, I think we need
to recognize that there are other very troubled spots in the world. We
just, today, have gotten word of thousands of Syrians who are fleeing
to Turkey because of the barbaric acts that have taken place there.
So I think that as we look at the great positive steps that have been
taken in the Arab world, we need to make sure that the United States
Congress and the President of the United States are in this together.
There should be consultation and authorization to deal with this.
Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that as we look at this rule itself, I
really am absolutely stunned, absolutely stunned at the kinds of things
that I've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms.
Slaughter), knows, as we began debate on this, we had complete
compliance with the 3-day layover requirement, and we had these
measures before us. I would say to my friend from Rochester, Mr.
Speaker, there was not a single amendment offered in the Committee on
Rules to deal with this, not a single amendment offered, and, in fact,
one of these measures is offered by a Republican, gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Rooney); the other is offered by a Democrat, the other
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
And so when I think about 3 o'clock in the morning on June 25 of
2009, we began the debate on this horrible idea of cap-and-trade, and
it was 3 o'clock in the morning and I was sitting upstairs with my
Rules Committee colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and dropped in my lap, still
hot because it had just come off of the copying machine, was 300 pages
of an amendment that we reported out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at 3 o'clock in the morning we were
handed this measure.
Now, what we have before us has, again, complied with the 3-day
layover requirement, not a single amendment was offered, and there's a
proposal offered by a Democrat and a proposal offered by a Republican.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I believe that this rule is one
that does allow for a free-flowing debate. It allows for an opportunity
to consider this, and it's not as if we haven't been engaged in this
discussion for a long period of time.
My friend from Cleveland is here and he has played a very, very
constructive role in leading the charge on this over the past several
weeks, as he often does, and I believe that our ability to continue
this debate is an important one.
But again, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying it saddens me
that at a time when we should be celebrating the fact there are people
in the Arab world who are seeking the opportunity to enjoy the kinds of
freedoms that we have here in the United States of America, that the
President of the United States has chosen to go it alone without
recognizing the very, very important responsibility of the first branch
of the United States Government.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. The right to protect civilians has morphed into the so-
called right to change a regime and the right to destroy civilians. The
situation is positively Orwellian, and it is all going wrong. Even
early supporters of the war are changing their minds. I would quote
from al Jazeera just a couple of days ago:
``Italy's foreign minister and the outgoing head of the Arab League
have each called for a halt to hostilities in the war-torn north
African country.
``Franco Frattini told members of Parliament on Wednesday that the
suspension of military operations in Libya was `essential' for
immediate humanitarian aid, while Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief,
called for a political solution to the crisis.
``Moussa's sentiment was shared by the Italian foreign minister, who
called for urgent humanitarian aid to trapped residents in cities like
Tripoli and Misurata.
``He said the people in those areas face a `dramatic' humanitarian
situation and added that a suspension of hostilities would also avoid
`consolidating a division of Libya' between east and west.
``He said he hoped the European Council in Brussels on Thursday would
highlight an end to the fighting in Libya as `a practical solution.' ''
The question is, Mr. Speaker, will Congress rush into the breach here
while our allies are headed to the exit?
H.R. 2278 by Mr. Rooney would immediately prevent the administration
from engaging in direct offensive hostilities in Libya, and it ought to
be supported.
Now, the resolution isn't perfect. It doesn't end the war in its
entirety immediately, but it does make clear that the United States
will not take over the war as European support continues to diminish.
{time} 0950
I proposed an amendment with Representative Amash of Michigan and 11
others to the Defense authorization bill that would eliminate all funds
for military operations in Libya. I urge a vote for this bipartisan
amendment when we come back after the recess.
H.R. 2278 and the Kucinich-Amash amendment are complementary. If we
want to end U.S. involvement, we can do it in two steps: First step,
vote for H.R. 2278; second step, vote for Kucinich-Amash when we come
back.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4538]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning as someone who has opposed the
Iraq war and consistently opposed the Afghanistan war under both
Republican and Democratic Presidents. I think it is important to stop
the politics this morning and recognize that mistakes were made by
Presidents of all political parties.
The War Powers Resolution that is now being debated as being
unconstitutional by my Republican friends has a very strong purpose. It
is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the
Framers of the Constitution of the United States and ensure that the
collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply
to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or
into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
going to occur. Now we have Republicans suggesting that the War Powers
Resolution is unconstitutional. What do they want? This is a political
game.
I voted for Mr. Kucinich's resolution, and the Republicans had the
opportunity to also vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution. This is to
embarrass the President.
I agree with the underlying sentiment that this was handled badly and
that there should have been consultation. Now there is an opportunity
for authorization. We need to debate this not whether it is President
Obama but whether or not there is a collaborative effort between NATO
and the Arab League to address this hostile situation in Libya. And,
frankly, I don't like the politics of this. The politics says, it's
okay if it's a Republican President but not okay if it's Mr. Obama.
I am interested in preserving the integrity of this Constitution and
have consistently voted that Congress has a right to declare war. But
we are now engaged in a consultation process, and I hope Members will
engage in the debate on the basis of the right decision to make. I am
against war. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. End the war in
Iraq. But right now, this should not be Republicans against Democrats
on the question of whether or not we are in a collaborative effort with
NATO on this issue of Libya. We are attempting to save lives; take the
politics out of it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to yield the gentlelady 1 additional
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady.
I went to the Libyan Embassy at the very start of this horrific
crisis and stood with the Libyan ambassador that resigned and called
for the resignation of General Qadhafi. Today I continue to call for
the cessation of the violence and abuse against the Libyan people. But
we have to address this question away from the cloud, as I indicated,
of politics.
We must adhere to the Constitution, Congress' right to declare war,
but I can't understand this now backside debate about the War Powers
Resolution being constitutional. For some of us, we believe that the
contents of it insist that it is.
So my point to my colleagues is, the Kucinich resolution was on the
floor, and every Republican had the opportunity to vote for it. Why we
are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had,
I believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this
administration and President Obama.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say I absolutely agree with the gentlelady. This is no place for
politics. And that's why, as Mr. Kucinich has led this effort time
after time after time, he's had tremendous support from the Republican
side of the aisle.
This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the
Constitution of the United States. This is about the 911,000 people I
represent back home. This is about the people's voice being behind the
President. As the chairman of the Rules Committee said, this should not
be a time for division. This should be a time for unification.
I absolutely agree with my colleagues who are concerned about the
debate happening today, on June 24. The time for the debate was March
18. The time for the debate was before this got started to begin with.
But we have been put in this box, Mr. Speaker, and we have a
constitutional responsibility to find our way out of it. We have on the
floor today under this rule two opportunities, two opportunities to
make our constituents' voices heard, and I encourage a strong ``yes''
vote for this rule so that we can bring those opportunities to the
floor.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I want to thank our ranking member for yielding and for her
leadership and for this very important debate this morning.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this debate, I believe, should have
taken place at least 2 weeks prior to the war in Libya. The War Powers
Act specifically forbids Armed Forces from engaging militarily in
foreign lands for more than 60 days without congressional authorization
of the use of military force or a declaration of war. And we should
really make no mistake about it: We are at war in Libya today. We have
been actively fighting the Qadhafi regime in Libya since March 19,
which is 97 days ago.
No one in this House now would defend the deplorable actions of
Colonel Qadhafi and the decades he has spent repressing the Libyan
people. But no one should fail to recognize that the actions we have
taken in Libya since March 19 amount to a war. Missile strikes, naval
attacks, bombings of strategic military targets, all of these actions
would be a declaration of war if a foreign country launched such
attacks on any country, including our own.
We have committed $1 billion and thousands of servicemen and -women
to a new front. And regardless of one's position on our involvement in
Libya, one point is crystal clear: This debate should have happened
before we launched a war in Libya.
On March 30 of this year, I joined with Representatives Woolsey,
Honda, Grijalva, and Waters, and we sent a letter to Speaker Boehner
urging him to bring forth an authorization of the use of military force
in Libya, stressing the need for a robust debate and vote in line with
our congressional prerogative and, indeed, obligations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to
the gentlelady.
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman.
Unfortunately, the Speaker did not grant our request, and we find
ourselves here today debating this important constitutional issue well
over 60 and even 90 days after hostilities began. So you will have to
forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical about the political motives
behind the floor actions that are scheduled today. Because we really
need to understand that this is serious business, and it should not be
politicized.
This is not about this President or any President. This is not about
politics or isolationism. This is about the War Powers Act and the
Constitution. It's about standing up for this body and our important
role in one of the most solemn and one of the most important decisions
that we make as lawmakers, and that's the decision to declare war.
Unfortunately, this resolution offered by my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Rooney) that is before us today has many exemptions that are very
broad and, of course, fall short of ending this war. I have some
concerns in terms of some of the limitations and exemptions, in terms
of making sure that this does not broaden the war with these
exemptions.
And I would hope the author, Mr. Rooney, would be able to clarify
these items and reassure us that: (1) reconnaissance would be limited
to intelligence gathering and not tactical operations and (2) refueling
would be limited to intelligence and reconnaissance, not operations.
Again, I hope we can clarify these points because we must stand up
for the Constitution and this body.
I hope that today we stand up for our Constitution. We must oppose, I
believe, the resolution that gives carte blanche authorization to
continue the war in Libya after the fact.
[[Page H4539]]
{time} 1000
And I want to thank again our ranking member for allowing for this
debate, and the chairman of the Rules Committee and Mr. Kucinich and
everyone for at least encouraging this debate to move forward. I guess
we could say today better late than never, but I certainly wish we had
adhered to our constitutional responsibility before the military
engagement began.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule
and remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate, we devoted 26
hours to it, and 263 Members, more than half the House of
Representatives, spoke.
I agree with what has just been said by Ms. Lee: this is much too
late. It comes at a very strange time, and it really says today that
this is pretty much a political move, which I regret, because this is
probably, as she pointed out, and those of us who've been here before
having to vote for it, voting to go to war is the most solemn
experience that we face here.
So let me urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with my
colleagues who say it's much too late. It is much too late. I wish we'd
had that opportunity to have this conversation before hostilities
began.
I am new to this body, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps my colleagues knew
hostilities were getting ready to begin. I did not. I heard about it on
CNN. There was no consultation with Congress before those hostilities
began. That was the right time to have this debate. That time has
passed.
And for those who say delay, delay, delay, I'll tell you, it's
already too late. We cannot delay any further.
And I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee has made
these two resolutions available because you have two very clear choices
today, Mr. Speaker.
As you know, on the Senate side there's the Kerry-McCain resolution.
And this resolution that we have from Mr. Hastings today largely
mirrors that resolution. If you believe that what's going on in Libya
is in the best interest of the United States, if you believe we have a
national security interest in Libya, if you believe that the Congress
should make clear that we are behind the President and what's going on
in Libya, you have that choice today in the resolution offered by Mr.
Hastings.
If you believe that this is just another example of a war that's
going to escalate, and you're concerned about that escalation, and you
want to put yourself on the record as saying no, no more, no more, you
have your chance to do that today with the Rooney resolution. No more.
I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a copy of Constitution of the
United States of America, again, ratified this week in 1788. Article I,
section 8: the Congress shall have the power to declare war. Article I,
section 9: no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence
of appropriations made by law.
Mr. Speaker, it's easy to say that foreign policy is the dominion of
the President of the United States, and it is. But the purse is the
dominion of the U.S. House of Representatives.
I want to hearken back again to what the chairman of the Rules
Committee said on the floor earlier: this should be a time of
celebration. And, Mr. Speaker, when we have troops in harm's way, it
should be something that we are unified behind and believe in as a
Nation, that we are ready to prosecute a war effort to the fullest
extent and bring our men and women home victorious.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a topic of unanimity. This is not a
topic that we have found any sort of agreement on whatsoever in this
body. In fact, this is a topic that we have been focused on and focused
on and focused on, trying to bring to conclusion in this House. And
this rule today, Mr. Speaker, gives us that opportunity.
Now, I want to make clear there's a further step that we could go. We
could go one step further that says no funds shall be used, period. And
when we return to this body, Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues, Mr.
Kucinich and Mr. Amash, are going to make that amendment available to
us, and I will be voting ``yes'' when that amendment comes down the
pike.
But for today, we have an opportunity to take a step in that
direction. We have an opportunity to make our voices heard. Are you
with it, or are you against it? Do you support what's going on in
Libya, or do you believe we're headed in the wrong direction as a
Nation?
You have that opportunity today; but only, Mr. Speaker, if you vote
``yes'' for this rule to make these two measures in order. I urge a
strong ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe we do need proper congressional
authorization for the military operations we are conducting in Libya,
and we need a clear definition of the mission and our objectives.
I would very much like to vote for such a measure, but that is not
the legislation before us today. Neither bill meets this test.
Instead, we have been presented with two unsatisfactory options: an
unfortunate choice between a cut-off of all funds for the Libya
operation, or support for a broad authorization for the use of force--
except for the deployment of ground forces--that lasts for one year.
Moreover, under the rules established by the Republican leadership,
no amendments are permitted to either measure.
So these are up-and-down votes on a very critical issue involving the
ongoing engagement of our military forces against Libya--on a take-it-
or-leave-it basis.
Neither of these measures has my support today.
I have never viewed Libya as being in the vital national security
interests of the United States. That in itself is a flashing warning
sign and a presumption against military involvement in Libya. This is
true notwithstanding the enormous hopes that rose with the democratic
uprising that erupted this spring--and the anger and outrage we feel as
those expressions for freedom and an end to Qaddafi's tyranny and
corruption have been met with the most brutal repression.
In March, Qaddafi blatantly threatened to exterminate tens, if not
hundreds, of thousands of his people. Key NATO allies, particularly
Britain and France, viewed this crisis as vital to their national
security interests, and urged us to join a military campaign that would
prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
In pursuit of this goal, President Obama commenced U.S. participation
in NATO military activities in March.
At the outset of the Libya operation in March, I was afraid that we
would in fact end up where we are today: a conflict that has lasted for
months, not weeks, as the President indicated would be the case, and
with a highly inconclusive situation on the ground.
This operation has carried significant internal tensions from the
very beginning. The purpose of the military campaign was to protect the
Libyan people from Qaddafi, but not explicitly to oust him.
Nevertheless, the scope and scale of military activities, in the face
of the stalemate between Qaddafi and the opposition forces, suggests
that the conflict cannot be resolved until Qaddafi is removed.
Second, while President Obama has consulted extensively with
Congress, he has not sought authorization for U.S. military involvement
pursuant to the War Powers Act. I disagree strongly with his
determination that the military campaign we are supporting and
prosecuting does not constitute ``hostilities'' within the meaning of
the War Powers Resolution. Active support for military operations that
involve extensive bombing of Libya plainly constitutes ``hostilities.''
It is therefore regrettable that, in addressing this complex and
difficult situation, we are presented with two unsatisfactory choices.
As I previously stated earlier this month when we took votes on Libya,
a sharp cut-off of funds, as provided today in H.R. 2778, is the wrong
thing to do. If this became law, we would run out on our NATO allies.
Qaddafi would be freer to resume murdering his own people with
impunity. And other tyrants in the region, such as Assad in Syria,
would be emboldened in their determination to crush democratic
movements in their countries.
But providing continued support for up to one year of the current
military campaign is also unacceptable to me, even though it includes
the very important limitation on the deployment of U.S. ground forces--
a limitation I strongly support. Should the current stalemate in Libya
continue indefinitely, such a commitment invites more and more
aggressive use of force in order to resolve it. This carries the
significant risk that we will find ourselves, months from now, more
deeply embedded in Libya and not any closer to a successful outcome and
conclusion.
While Libya is not in our vital national security interests, standing
with our NATO allies very much is. Accordingly, I would support a
limited authorization for continuing support for
[[Page H4540]]
NATO's military campaign to protect the Libyan people, but for a much
shorter period of time than provided by H.J. Res. 68.
I believe the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should come directly
to Congress to seek a limited authorization of military support for our
NATO allies, and Congress should promptly act on it. This would help
secure a stronger consensus behind a much more limited and well-defined
campaign, and ensure that it is truly conducted in pursuit of our
national security and policy interests.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 167, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 492]
YEAS--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (IN)
NAYS--167
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Bachus
Berg
Bishop (UT)
Butterfield
Cantor
Cardoza
Denham
Engel
Fattah
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
LaTourette
Napolitano
Paul
Pelosi
Rangel
Ryan (OH)
Simpson
Stivers
Towns
Watt
Whitfield
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1031
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WU changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
492. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 328, the
rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 68, Authorizing the
limited use of United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO
mission in Libya; and consideration of H.R. 2278, to limit the use of
funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed
Forces in support of NATO operations in Libya.
____________________