[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 92 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4540-H4550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING LIMITED USE OF ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I
call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gravity of the
legislation before us, but I rise to make a point of order that this
bill violates clause 11 of rule XXI. This section of the rule states
that it shall not be in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution
which has not been reported by a committee until it has been available
to Members for 72 hours.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 328, all points
of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Can the Chair tell the House when H.R. 2278
and H.J. Res. 68 were made available to Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has said that he
will not bring a bill to the floor that has not been available for 72
hours. Have these bills been available for 72 hours?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has once again not stated a
proper parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the majority waiving the position of the
Speaker, waiving the rule as it relates to the legislation before us?
[[Page H4541]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is engaging in
debate and not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The fact of the matter is this bill has not
been available for 72 hours, and not even 3 calendar days.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized for debate
at this point. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
Pursuant to House Resolution 328, the joint resolution is considered
read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 68
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE LIMITED USE OF UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA.
(a) Authority.--The President is authorized to continue the
limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in
support of United States national security policy interests,
as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) as requested by the
Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council,
and the Arab League.
(b) Expiration of Authority.--The authorization for such
limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya expires
one year after the date of the enactment of this joint
resolution.
SEC. 2. OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF UNITED STATES GROUND TROOPS.
Consistent with the policy and statements of the President,
Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or
maintaining the presence of units and members of the United
States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose
of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense
of United States Government officials (including diplomatic
representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from
imminent danger.
SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
The President shall consult frequently with Congress
regarding United States efforts in Libya, including by
providing regular briefings and reports as requested, and
responding to inquiries promptly. Such briefings and reports
shall include the following elements:
(1) An updated description of United States national
security interests in Libya.
(2) An updated statement of United States policy objectives
in Libya, both during and after Qaddafi's rule, and a
detailed plan to achieve them.
(3) An updated and comprehensive list of the activities of
the United States Armed Forces in Libya.
(4) An updated and detailed assessment of the groups in
Libya that are opposed to the Qaddafi regime, including
potential successor governments.
(5) A full and updated explanation of the President's legal
and constitutional rationale for conducting military
operations in Libya consistent with the War Powers Resolution
(50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint 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.
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. 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 H.J. Res. 68.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support a complete U.S. withdrawal from NATO's
Operation Unified Protector. I believe that it is necessary for U.S.
Armed Forces to remain engaged in a limited capacity. However, I cannot
support an authorization which constitutes our current level of
engagement for an entire year. This is what is proposed in H.J. Res.
69, offered by my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I therefore
must rise in opposition to his resolution.
This resolution not only authorizes U.S. military engagement in Libya
far beyond even the 90-day NATO extension, but it justifies U.S.
military engagement in Libya as undertaken to enforce a United Nations
Security Council resolution and at the request of the Transitional
National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League. So
we must ask: Where is the United States Congress in this equation?
If an authorization resolution had been put forward in February, I
might have been able to support it. I understand the mission. But in
the intervening period, conditions have changed significantly on the
ground in Libya, within NATO, with our NATO partners, and here in the
U.S. Decisive action with congressional authorization at the outset
might have solved this problem quickly, but now we have drifted into an
apparently open-ended commitment with goals that remain only vaguely
defined. And that is at the heart of the problem, Mr. Speaker.
The President asserted, ``These strikes will be limited in their
nature, duration, and scope.'' Well, it is now day 97--97--of our
involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities regarding Libya; yet
Qadhafi still clings to power and the opposition appears to be no
closer to a decisive victory. Command for the military operation has
been transferred to NATO; yet the constrained role the President has
said is being played by U.S. forces in Libya still includes nearly one-
quarter of the total sorties flown in Libya; suppression of the enemy
air defense through missile strikes; strikes by unmanned Predators on
Qadhafi targets; nearly 70 percent of the mission's intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance; and over 75 percent of all aerial
refueling. Yet the President has yet to explain just what American
interests are at stake and just what outcomes he is hoping to achieve.
The resolution offered by our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, and adopted
by this Chamber on June 3 posed specific questions that required
straight answers. Instead, we received a letter and accompanying
documents from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative
Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs,
which stated that U.S. actions in Libya were ``taken in response to
direct appeals from the Libyan people and acting with a mandate from
the United Nations.''
{time} 1040
The administration proceeded to justify its current policy by
asserting that U.S. military operations in Libya do not constitute
hostilities. This argument is so incredulous that even the attorneys in
the Office of the Legal Counsel do not agree. Therefore, I am not
optimistic that the reporting provisions in the resolution we are
considering today, which calls for ``a full and updated explanation of
the President's legal and constitutional rationale for conducting
military operations in Libya,'' will be fulfilled in a fulsome manner,
respectful of congressional prerogatives.
Again, I must underscore that I do not support a complete withdrawal
from our commitments concerning Libya. That would be dangerous. That
would be ill-advised. A complete withdrawal of all U.S. military assets
from the Libya operations would undermine our intelligence efforts and
our foreign policy goals, and would all but assure a victory for
Qadhafi. It can lead to greater instability, which could affect NATO
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at a critical stage of transition.
There are also proliferation concerns at stake, particularly as an
increasing number of weapons have moved into the region and reportedly
fallen into the hands of extremist organizations, including al Qaeda in
the Islamic Maghreb. The Qadhafi regime is an unpredictable regime that
has chemical weapons, including mustard and possibly sarin gas.
While a complete withdrawal is unacceptable, the resolution before us
is also unacceptable. The resolution effectively ratifies all that the
President has done, and it would grant him the blessings of Congress to
continue on his present course. The resolution before us would enable
mission creep, rather than setting clear parameters for U.S.
engagement. I must therefore oppose this resolution.
[[Page H4542]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I
yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. It's high time that Congress asserts its
authority and engages proactively with the administration on this most
serious question of war. I just wonder where my colleagues have been
all these years that we have had Presidents and war. It will be
interesting to see a matchup of their votes with this one.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation authorizes the limited use of
United States forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. This
legislation is a bipartisan effort to prevent the kind of open-ended,
indefinite military commitments we have elsewhere in the world.
Register that as Afghanistan and Iraq. This resolution is a companion
to forward-leaning Senate legislation introduced by Senators John
Kerry, John McCain, Benjamin Cardin, and Richard Durbin. Immediately
after they introduced the resolution in the Senate, I brought it to the
House so that we can make progress on this very important debate before
us.
If I had my way, Mr. Speaker--and I don't--we wouldn't be in Libya at
all. But I don't have my way, and here we are, and the solution now is
not to cut off all funding and suddenly walk out. We have a
responsibility to our allies. As long as we are continuing to supply
logistics, materiel, and critical intelligence and operational
capabilities--and no boots on the ground--we must support our allies
who are carrying out the direct combat operations. We must stand with
NATO.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if I had my way--and I don't--there are revisions
to this resolution that I believe the Congress ought to consider. I
maintain that a better date to end the authorization would be the end
of September, and certainly no later than December. The 1-year
authorization limits the President's ability to engage our Armed Forces
indefinitely so that we don't find ourselves neck deep in yet another
war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. This authorization prohibits the use of
ground forces and at the same time requires the President to
continually report to Congress. I would rather us use some of Libya's
frozen assets so that we could have them pay for the mission that they
began.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Dr. Paul, a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that endorses the policies that
have been going on for 4 months. Not only has the Congress basically
been strong in opposition to what has been going on, the American
people are even more so. So what this resolution does is endorses
exactly what has been going on--another unconstitutional war,
involvement and justification under NATO and the United Nations, doing
it secretly. There's an attempt to restrain the funding of this effort
over in Libya. How can we restrain it, because we've never authorized
it. Restrain unauthorized funds? The funds weren't authorized. The
President just goes and does it.
What we're talking about here is the challenge for the Congress on
looking at the unitary President. The unitary President has been around
for quite a few years. That means that Presidents do what they want,
and the Congress just acknowledges it. So that is what we're doing.
This is what this resolution does. It acknowledges and gives authority
to the President to pursue this war, which is actually what he has been
doing. Obviously, H.J. Res. 68, for me, is a very, very strong ``no''
because the last thing we need to do is to be giving explicit support
and explicit authorization for the very policies that so many people
now think are ill-advised.
This resolution also says you don't send in ground troops. Well,
that's fine, no ground troops. But in this day and age, war can go on
for a long time without the ground troops. It happened to a degree in
Bosnia. But it didn't exempt such things as special forces, the CIA.
The CIA has been in Libya, and I'm sure they will be, as they are in
many, many other hundreds of countries. Contractors. When we can't send
in troops, we send in contractors. We have as many contractors in
Afghanistan as we do the military. So a couple thousand troops come out
of Afghanistan and nothing changes as we add more contractors. Nothing
ever changes.
But this whole idea of this effort to legalize the bombing, at least
give the authority to the President to continue this, is foolhardy. How
many more wars can we withstand? What number is this? This is I think
number five. Today, in the papers, number six is coming. How long
before we're in Syria? Go into Syria tomorrow and in 90 days we'll
start talking about Syria and proper authority.
Instead, we in Congress have given up our responsibility for war.
Because the responsibility of going to war should have been and still
remains constitutionally mandated that the Congress makes these
decisions. The President is not supposed to get us engaged in war
without Congress' authority. Too often we say, Whatever you need, we'll
endorse it.
We have another resolution coming up shortly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. PAUL. Unfortunately, I think the next resolution, H.R. 2278,
isn't much different because it has too many exceptions. It says: Deny
funding. But there are too many exceptions, and the exceptions are to
allow the very things the President is currently doing.
So both resolutions have serious shortcomings. Both resolutions
should be defeated if you're opposed to this war in Libya.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott.)
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's
response to Libya.
A week after it started, I received a phone call from a very
distinguished professor at the University of Washington, who had left
and was back in Libya. He is now the Finance Minister, Dr. Tarhouni. He
said to me, Please give us air cover. If you can protect us from the
air, we can take care of it ourselves on the ground.
{time} 1050
As I listened to him, I thought of an experience I had with President
Clinton. I flew to Africa, to Kigali, and met with people who had been
part of the massacre--the maimed. Then I saw the President go into the
hangar and speak to 500 Rwandans and apologize for not having responded
to the Rwandan massacre on the first day. This was a situation where
the Libyans were asking for it. It was one where the Arab League was
asking for it. This was not something that was cooked up in the White
House, created and sent out. This was done in response to people on the
ground.
My belief is that these kinds of situations require the President to
act decisively. He did and I support him.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Judge Poe, vice chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Mr. POE of Texas. I appreciate the chairlady for yielding me time on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, going to war is a big deal. That's why our forefathers
put within the Constitution that when America is to go to war it is
Congress that is to lead that charge, that it is Congress to authorize
America's going to war. That has been the law in the Constitution since
it was written.
Then came the War Powers resolution, and Congress decided that it
would give a little of that constitutional authority to the President
for a period of days until he justified his action before Congress. We
can argue whether the War Powers resolution is constitutional or not.
But in any event, Congress has not led America to war in Libya.
[[Page H4543]]
The President has.
The President made that decision.
As James Madison, the author of the Constitution, said in a letter to
Thomas Jefferson--and I paraphrase--it has been the history of peoples
that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war,
and that's why our Constitution prevented kings and dictators and even
Presidents from leading this country to war. It must be authorized by
Congress.
But now we find ourselves in America's third war--in Libya. The
President took us to war. Now, on this day, we are being asked to
support and justify that war in this resolution. I vote ``no'' on this
resolution. We have no business in Libya. Even the administration has
said it is not in the national security interest of the United States
to be in Libya.
So why are we there? We are there because we don't like Muammar
Qadhafi. There are a lot of bad guys in the world, and if we start
picking them off one at a time we will be at war with most of the
world, because most of the world is led by rogue dictators--or bad
guys. We have no business being in Libya. We have no business
justifying this war on the House floor.
It is Congress' responsibility to defund any further action in Libya,
and that is what we should do. It's unfortunate we don't have that up-
or-down vote. I wish we could vote up or down today on that issue and
let the House decide if we should be at war in Libya. $700 million has
already been spent on the war in Libya. It's hard to figure out where
that money came from. I get different answers from different people
about where the President got that money. Maybe we should spend that
$700 million in the United States, building America rather than blowing
up Libya. I think that would be a better use of funds.
We need to take care of America. We shouldn't be involved in somebody
else's civil war in Libya. Who are the rebels? We're not sure who they
are either. They may be extremists. They may be patriots. They may be
of democratic philosophy. We have no idea.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. POE of Texas. We don't know who the rebels are. They may be worse
than Muammar Qadhafi. Now, isn't that a lovely situation if they take
control. We replace an oppressive regime with an extremist radical
regime, and that's all because we are in a war that was unauthorized by
this Congress.
Cut off all funds. Vote against this resolution.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
gentleman with the opposite view of this issue than I have, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. What? We don't have enough wars going on? A war in
Iraq, a war in Afghanistan? We need one more war? We have to wage war
against another nation which did not attack us? We have to wage war
against another nation which does not represent an actual or imminent
threat to the United States?
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I have been all over this
country, and I haven't had a single person come up to me to tell me,
``You know, Dennis, what America needs is another war.'' The last thing
we need is to be voting to go to war. There are plenty of reasons to
oppose the war in Libya:
It's unconstitutional. Article I, section 8 has given the Congress
the power to declare war.
It's illegal. The War Powers resolution was passed over Presidential
veto to allow the President latitude to respond when there is an
imminent threat to the U.S. while retaining the constitutional duty of
Congress. Even the President's top legal advisers at the Pentagon and
the Department of Justice determined that the War Powers resolution
applies to the war in Libya.
Another reason is that Americans don't want this war. A poll taken at
the beginning of the month by CBS found that six in 10 Americans do not
think the United States should be involved in a conflict within Libya.
Just 30 percent of Americans in that poll thought the United States was
doing the right thing by taking part in the current military conflict.
A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike think the
U.S. should not be involved in Libya.
Next, this war is a distraction. Our flailing economy demands the
full attention of Congress and the President. The American people have
little patience, or less, especially for a war of choice.
Then there is the cost of the war, Mr. Speaker. We've spent $750
million so far. If we keep going on, it will cost billions.
We have to end this war. Vote against this authorization.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I stand today in support of this resolution.
The world is watching our actions today. The world is asking: What
are we going to do? We talk all the time about allowing Europe to take
the lead in certain areas, about allowing NATO to take the lead in
foreign policy, and they have done that. Now will we today pull the rug
out from under them simply because we have a dispute between the
legislative and the executive branches?
I think the President should have come to this Chamber, too, but he
didn't. Yet the wrong thing to do is to pull funding, and the right
thing to do is to give him the authorization to go into Libya. A
slaughter almost occurred, and we were able to stop it by our presence
there. The vote we take in the House today will have implications far
beyond our shores and far into the future. Finally, I am reminded of a
quote by George Washington, in which he states, ``Liberty, when it
begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.''
I support this resolution and would urge all my colleagues to do the
same. In doing so, we will be supporting the planting of freedom and
liberty in the Middle East.
Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking
member of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hastings amendment.
In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower
and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate
and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The United
States' effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of
nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations
Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect
Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of
Muammar Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising,
inspired by the Arab Spring, was to use force against civilians and
opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international
outcry and the U.N. action.
In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our
involvement in this military action. While the direct U.S. leadership
of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the
NATO operation. In this Chamber today, we are considering both the
resolution authorizing the continued use of limited U.S. involvement in
this effort or our immediate withdrawal from it.
While I believe it would have been more appropriate for the
President, under the terms of the War Powers Act, to come to Congress
earlier, I believe the language offered by Hastings of Florida, similar
to the language introduced in the other body by Senators McCain and
Kerry, is the appropriate course of action at this time.
{time} 1100
The language preserves the understanding between the administration
and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time
and were not asked for by the rebels.
The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr.
Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe
this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our
relationship with NATO allies.
And when I hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the House
[[Page H4544]]
Chamber speaking in favor of abandoning the cause, I'm reminded of
Ronald Reagan who attacked Libya with air power and called Qadhafi the
``mad dog of the Middle East.''
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 90 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), ranking member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. We should learn from the past. There are indeed times when
American national interests should overtake political or partisan
political interests.
I remember the debate on Kosova 12 years ago. Congress refused to
authorize American action by a split vote. That was a tragic mistake.
House Republican leadership opposed that resolution: 187 noes against
31 yeses. I believe it was clear then that Republicans would not have
opposed the Kosova resolution, at least in those numbers, if George
Bush had been President.
Today, there are echoes from Kosova on this Libyan resolution. The
Republicans should not make the same mistake again. We should join
together to support the Hastings' resolution that's consistent with the
War Powers Act.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hastings
resolution.
I think it's important to remember that U.S. military force is a very
awesome thing and should only be employed in very select circumstances.
We misused that power when it came to Iraq, and we used that power in
an improper way and too long in Afghanistan. But when people are being
slaughtered by dictators around the world, where massive loss of lives
and innocents are at stake, I think it is appropriate for the United
States to step up and protect those people.
Yes, we do have business in Libya. We have business in protecting
mass murder from happening and stopping mass murder from happening
around the world. We have business in stopping the destabilization of
regions like north Africa. We have business in making sure that the
peaceful resolutions in Egypt and in Tunisia are not undermined. We
have business in making sure that dictators like Ali Saleh in Yemen and
Bashar al-Assad in Syria are not emboldened and the signal does not go
out to them that they can continue to wipe out their population and
nobody cares.
I believe that if I was in this Congress when Rwanda or Srebrenica or
Darfur were happening, I pray that I would stand up and say that those
people need to have some protection and that the most powerful Nation
in the world shouldn't stand by while innocent women and children are
being mowed down, and I hope today that my colleagues will join in that
because it's the right thing to do.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman
from California has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
Florida has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished Speaker, and to
the distinguished Members that are on this floor, what a heck of a
position to be in.
Let me make it very clear this is a set of circumstances that frames
itself around the Constitution, the War Powers resolution, that
indicates that Congress must be consulted. But I am in the middle of my
actions that took place months ago or many weeks ago as the crisis and
the murderous acts of Colonel Qadhafi began to seize his people. And we
went to the Libyan Embassy to ask for Colonel Qadhafi to step down, and
we joined with the then-Ambassador in his courageous act. Colonel
Qadhafi is known to oppress his people; to deny rights of freedom of
press and speech, as well as association; to train dictators in
oppression and intelligence; and the murderous acts still go on.
But it is a crisis when we have an administration, unfortunately,
that has not seen fit to undertake the consultation that is necessary.
Yet I believe that we should finish the task, and it is different from
Iraq and it is different from Afghanistan. We have a time certain and,
as well, we have the Arab League that has asked us to stand with them
against the oppression of one of its members.
This is a door opener to say to the people that we have asked to be
with us to go against terrorist acts to stand for democracy. So this is
a devastating position to put the Members of Congress in, but we must
do our duty today, and I believe that it is good to say that the
Hastings amendment is the framework, though I would prefer 6 months,
and I hope there is an opportunity to address this for a limited time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker and Members, apparently the House has
debated for more than almost 40 years ago the War Powers agreement or
War Powers law. What we have before us today is a way in which we can
effect that law and put it into place, and there is reason for us to
support the Hastings amendment or the Hastings resolution, and there
are four reasons.
First of all, there's a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we
went into this in the first place, the United Nations resolution on the
obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat.
Secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the United
Nations, by NATO, by the Arab League, in a most unusual situation
asking for support of the Europeans and the United States in an Arab
country.
Finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do
it in a very limited way. The resolution does that. It provides for a
very limited scope and a limited period of time and, therefore, it is
in order; and it appropriately puts the Congress, both Houses if this
should pass the Senate, in support of the operation, thereby fulfilling
the War Powers Act.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honored to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human
Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank our distinguished chairwoman for
yielding and thank her for her leadership today and every day on human
rights issues.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68.
You know, when U.S. intervention in Libya began last March, I
raised--and I was among many--several still unanswered questions about
our involvement. They included questions about the identity and the
aims of the rebels, the varying Presidential statements that seemed to
shift like the wind, the level of U.S. involvement, the possibility of
Qadhafi retaliating against American interests outside of Libya, and
whether U.S. ground troops might well be requested at some point,
although the resolution seems to clearly say that that would not be
authorized by Congress.
In the course of the debate over the constitutionality and viability
of the War Powers resolution, these questions have remained unanswered.
The President has refused to seek congressional approval of his action
or even to provide a full explanation of his decisions. As the NATO
campaign continues, new questions have arisen about U.S. participation
and what is now NATO's involvement in Libya.
{time} 1110
Let me just say mention was made a moment ago by Mr. Levin about
Kosova and that somehow the Republican opposition to military action in
Kosova was political. It absolutely was not! I remember because I was
very involved in trying to mitigate the Balkan troubles. I visited
there many times, visited with Milosevic, the dictator in Belgrade.
Actually, I was in Vukovar right before it fell.
So, frankly, the statement that was made earlier I think did a
disservice to those of us who were not supportive of the Kosova
operation. There was no plan to war protect the Kosovar Albanians. We
used air power. Milosevic invaded with ground trops. If Members
[[Page H4545]]
will remember, that country's population was literally, literally
pushed out into Macedonia and elsewhere--about 1.6 million refugees--
because there was no plan when Milosevic sent in the ground troops and
killed thousands of people because we had no plan to protect them. An
estimated 10,000 people were killed.
So the revisionism that somehow Republican opposition to the war was
a political calculation falls very, very far from the truth. And it's a
cheap shot. I actually chaired hearings during the war and stated my
oppositions based on principle, as did other Members. So I expect--and
hope--unfounded revisionism would be avoided and that there would not
be that look-back that does a disservice on the issue at hand to
principled Republican opposition.
So, who exactly are we backing in Libya? What justification under
international law is there for directing both U.S. and foreign
government assets to a rebel entity that is not democratically elected
and, therefore, not necessarily representative of the people of that
country? We don't know.
In addition, a senior NATO official told CNN on June 9 that Qadhafi
``was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign.'' Even though this
was expressed as a NATO position, are we now to understand that the
Obama administration is sanctioning the killing of foreign leaders?
Again, pursuant to what international criteria or legal justification?
Mr. Speaker, again, I call on my colleagues to vote down this
resolution that is offered, H.J. Res. 68.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, today I say that we have an opportunity. The
camera of history is rolling, is watching what we do today. We can
authorize the President to continue the limited use of the United
States services, working in conjunction with NATO today so that we can
show that we are united with our allies.
Think about what history will say 50 years from now. We have an
individual who was going to massacre his individuals. And by us
stepping in, working in conjunction with our NATO allies, we are saving
thousands of lives. What would have taken place historically if we had
allowed the annihilation of the Libyan people? Let's stick together on
this.
From its inception, this has been an international initiative to
enforce U.N. Resolution 1973 and the response to the request of Libya's
Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the
Arab League. President Obama deployed U.S. assets early, said he will
continue just with what we have, our special assets, and then have no
troops on the ground. The camera of history is rolling. Let's work
together. Let's pass this resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we were asked to come into Libya by Libyans,
by the Arab League, by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by the European
Union, and by the United Nations Security Council. Today we are
standing where we should be standing, with those who believe in
freedom, in human rights, and in the rule of law.
But also today, as we debate this issue, Muammar Qadhafi's forces
continue their merciless assault against civilians and combatants
alike, not just in Misratah but in the western mountains and cities
throughout central Libya. The Libyan Transitional National Council,
which needs our support, is extraordinarily short of weaponry, money,
and training. But they are the boots on the ground, fighting and dying
to dislodge Qadhafi, who is a bad guy, who did oversee the killing of
189 innocent passengers on PanAm 103.
We need to be on the other side, not giving comfort to Qadhafi so
that he can thank us for the resolution and this vote as he thanked
Speaker Boehner for his resolution last week. We need to make clear we
don't support him. We do support people who are fighting for the same
values that define our country; 38 of those people were killed just
this week. To cut off operational funding for the NATO operation is to
side with Qadhafi against the forces who are fighting for those values
which define us.
And, you know, the idea that this hasn't been explained sufficiently
by the President is a bogus one. We have minds of our own. We know the
facts. We can make a judgment. The right judgment is to side with the
President and to continue this support to the Libyans until America
shows all the people of the Arab world that it's true to its own values
and principles.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, would you inform us as to the amount of time
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
There are two issues before Congress: one is the reassertion of its
responsibility under article I and the War Powers Act; number two is
the decision on the limited use of force for humanitarian missions in
Libya. The Hastings resolution accomplishes both.
It reasserts our authority under article I and the War Powers Act. It
says, yes, we do support limited intervention with a role for the U.S.
in saving lives in Libya. That mission is necessary to avert a
humanitarian disaster. Two, the mission has broad international
support, including from the Arab League. Three, the U.S. role is
limited in scope: no boots on the ground. And, finally, we are, by
acting, asserting our responsibility under the War Powers Act and our
responsibility under article I.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I reserve the right to close, Mr. Speaker; so I
will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are 90 days into this operation, and the majority is
bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House.
Let's just call it for what it is. They know it will fail. They want to
continue to play games with U.S. national security.
Let's be honest about what's happening here. The Republican
leadership allowed this resolution to come to the floor for one reason
and one reason only: They know it will fail, and they think its defeat
will be a political defeat for the White House. If that type of
trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it.
{time} 1120
Mr. Speaker, I think our commitments to NATO and the humanitarian
crisis that created the NATO operation in Libya are too important to be
exploited for cynical political purposes. In my view, the perfect
authorization would have been a 6-month authorization for a limited
purpose with a limitation on that authorization with respect to a
position the House has stood for the entire time, as has the President,
and that is no boots on the ground.
But the Republicans didn't give this side the choice of the
resolution for authorization. They told us what the resolution for
authorization would be, and that's a very unfortunate kind of a
situation. So we will go through this process. And perhaps, at the end
of the day, after this resolution fails, we will get another letter to
the House of Representatives sent to the Speaker thanking us from
Colonel Qadhafi for once again demonstrating that we want to send a
message that he is going to prevail in this conflict.
And when that happens, what do we think the dictator of Syria is
going to think? Faced with the choice of change or quitting, he will
hear the message: the way to survive, the way to hold onto power is for
a despot to continue to kill his own people without the rest of the
world doing anything.
There are critical alliances at stake. There are critical interests
at stake. The national security question is far beyond simply what is
going to happen in Libya, but in its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia,
throughout the Middle East and through the entire world, the message of
trying to say that we're going to pull the plug on this particular
operation.
And heaven knows, we could spend time talking about the way the
administration has handled it; but right now
[[Page H4546]]
we have one choice, to pull the plug on this baby, or to let it play
out in a limited and responsible fashion, to achieve our goals and send
a message that the civilized world is not going to stand for this kind
of barbarity and brutality.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the joint resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, to wrap up on our side, I am proud and
pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Griffin), a member of both the Committees on Foreign Affairs and
Armed Services.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
House Joint Resolution 68, which authorizes the President to continue
military operations in Libya.
I appreciate all the policy arguments that I've heard here today. But
the question for me is, is it illegal or not? If it's a question of
law, then all of the arguments about making this group mad or not being
a good ally, et cetera, those are very persuasive; but those are not
legal arguments. Those don't change whether the actions in Libya are
constitutional or legal. Those are policy arguments.
The President continues to be in violation of the War Powers
resolution, which requires congressional approval for military action
within 60 days of the initial use of our Armed Forces. That deadline
expired long ago.
The President continues to involve the U.S. military in this illegal
conflict and has continually ignored requests to gain congressional
approval.
What's so hard, Mr. President, about coming to the House and
consulting with the Congress? What's so hard about that? Other
Presidents who may have had their doubts about the constitutionality of
the War Powers resolution have still gone through the process to
respect the people that are represented by this body.
Reportedly, the President ignored advice from his top lawyers at the
Pentagon and the Justice Department who said that he no longer had the
legal authority to continue military action without congressional
authorization.
Furthermore, this is not a legal argument--but I think it's
relevant--we're broke. The price tag of the military action in Libya
has already cost the U.S. Government over $750 million. This resolution
would authorize the President to continue military action in Libya for
up to a year. That could result in billions of dollars of funding by
the American taxpayer that we just can't afford.
We cannot spend precious taxpayer funds to support this military
action while the President flouts the law and Constitution.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
The President's initial justification for our military intervention
in Libya was that it was necessary to prevent the massacre of Libyan
civilians by government forces in Benghazi, and that this would be
strictly a humanitarian mission.
As I noted back in March, deploying American warriors to protect
civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause. Yet I also expressed
my reservations at the time because I feared that the mission could
result in a protracted stalemate. Although the President promised the
American people that our involvement would be limited, a matter of
weeks, not months, we find ourselves past the 3-month mark with no end
in sight.
This bill would authorize operations for up to a year. We're
currently engaged in a war that is vital to our national security. In
Afghanistan we're fighting extremists who sheltered the terrorist
organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, and would
again provide them with a sanctuary if given the chance. We're in the
process of consolidating our victory in Iraq and still have 50,000
troops there in harm's way.
Indeed, a clear strategic vision is required to make any military
intervention successful. Since this operation began, the connection
between strategic ends and operational means has been lacking.
Consequently, unless the NATO mission departs from its original
mandate, it appears that our only recourse is to hope that Qadhafi will
voluntarily leave his country. I cannot support a long-term commitment
of U.S. forces to hostilities when success is based on hope.
Furthermore, the President failed to seek congressional authorization
for this operation on the flimsiest of legal rationale. It's not
appropriate for this body to cover his lapse with a blanket
authorization.
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I rise in support of this resolution. This is Congress exercising its
authority as appropriate. And I agree with the people who say that
Congress should do this, and I just wish we would understand that
Congress has a certain responsibility in that regard.
Yes, the President should have asked us, but it's been over 3 months
and this House has chosen not to act until now. I think it's
appropriate that we are. I think we should authorize this mission in
Libya, and I strongly support that mission.
Now, like most Americans, when this issue first came up, when the
people in Libya started rising up against their oppressive dictator, I
was very reluctant about the idea of U.S. military involvement, as I
think we always should be. I think in the past we have been too over-
anxious to use the U.S. military in places where it was not a good fit.
We need to think carefully about this. And in every instance we need to
strike a balance.
{time} 1130
On the one hand, what is the positive impact that our involvement
could have and, on the other hand, what are the risks of that
involvement? I think there was a unique set of circumstances in Libya
that made this make sense.
First of all, our involvement could have a very positive impact. We
had international support. The U.N., NATO, the Arab League, everybody
in the world wanted Qadhafi to be stopped from slaughtering the
civilians who were rightfully standing up and asking for the basic
rights that we take for granted in this country. In addition to that,
our military budget is roughly equivalent to the entire rest of the
world's combined. That gives us a unique set of capabilities. That
unique set of capabilities was critical to stopping Qadhafi from
crushing again the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Libyan
people. If we had not acted, they would be crushed, many more civilians
would be dead, and Qadhafi would be back in power. We cannot walk away
from that responsibility and say that, well, yes, we don't like
Qadhafi, we wish the people there would do well, but we simply don't
want to support the action that is necessary to give them that
opportunity. So in this case, I think the mission did make sense for
that reason. The United States was in the position to make a difference
and stand up for people who were asking for legitimate rights.
But then the broader question is, well, what does that have to do
with the United States? That may be true, but it's true in a lot of
countries. The reason this is so important is because of the broader
movement that is going on, the so-called Arab Spring, people in Muslim
countries rising up and demanding representative rights. That has an
incredible impact on us. The greatest threat that we face as a country
right now is from al Qaeda and their ideology. That ideology arose in
part because of a whole bunch of repressive governments across the
Muslim world that weren't providing for their people, a number of
repressive governments, by the way, which the United States has in the
past supported. We had an opportunity to do the opposite, to stand up
for Muslim people. Let me tell you, in the history of this country, I
don't think we've ever gotten as much positive press on the Muslim TV
stations and Muslim media as we got for standing up to Qadhafi. This
has been enormously helpful to us in that broader ideological effort.
We had national security interests here for standing up.
Now as a House, I don't want us to stand up and say that we're going
to
[[Page H4547]]
back down from that commitment that we made. Make no mistake about it,
if we defeat this resolution and pass the Rooney resolution, we will
stop the mission in Libya and empower Muammar Qadhafi, something that I
know nobody wants to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I've heard a number of people say, well, the Constitution does give
the President latitude, but during the Nixon administration Congress
passed the War Powers Act, and then when the President vetoed it,
Congress overrode his veto, and so the War Powers Act became law. Now
whether or not you believe it's constitutional, it has never been
tested in the courts, and so it's the law. And the law says, as well as
the Constitution, at least this is what most of the people who have
looked at the Constitution believe is what it stands for, the
Constitution and the War Powers Act say the President cannot do what he
did without the support and approval of Congress. Now he's gotten us
into the war in Libya and it is, in effect, our war.
People say, well, no, it's NATO. Well, we are providing over 8,000 of
the military personnel on the ships and in the air. The majority of the
flights that are taking place where they're doing the bombing are done
by our airmen and our aircraft. Over 90 percent of the missiles that
are being used at over a million dollars per copy are American
missiles. This is going to cost billions of dollars. If this were to
pass and we were to stay there for over a year, you could count on it
costing $2 billion or $3 billion.
My colleague from Arkansas just a few minutes ago talked about us
being broke. The American people know, if Congress doesn't, that we're
$1.5 trillion short this year, and we're $14 trillion in debt. We're
printing money that our kids are going to have to deal with because
they're going to have to pay for the debt down the road. Some of us
will pay if we live long enough, but our kids are certainly going to
inherit the debt. And so we're adding to the debt by going into a war
we shouldn't be in and without the approval of the Congress in
accordance with the War Powers Act and the Constitution.
Now my big concern is--and I'm going to talk on the other bill that
is coming up later on--not just Libya. My big concern is this
President, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us
into Syria. There's humanitarian problems in Syria right now, and the
reason they went into Libya, they said, was because of the humanitarian
problems. He talked to the French, the English, the NATO, United
Nations and the Arab League for about 2 weeks before we went into
Libya, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress who appropriates
the money and authorizes this stuff. He's the Commander in Chief once
we go to war, but he needs the authority from Congress to go into it,
and he didn't do it.
There are a lot of wars of opportunity. The President could go into
Syria. He could go into the Ivory Coast.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There are a lot of places we could go to war
if we choose to do it. There's humanitarian problems around the world.
But unless it's a threat to the United States or an attack on the
United States, the President does not have the authority to do what he
did without the support and approval of Congress.
President Bush came to Congress before he went into Iraq. President
Bush came to Congress before he went into Afghanistan, and that's as it
should be. This President should not overstep his boundaries. And what
I wish we would do, which would exceed the legislation we're going to
be talking about today, is to pass legislation to cut off all funds for
Libya. I know it would not pass the Senate, but it sure would send a
signal to the President and the White House that we're not going to
allow him to go into war without the approval of the American people
and the approval of Congress.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The previous speaker deludes himself, and he is my friend, if he
thinks the message we send today goes only to the President. The
message will go to all the world, the message will go to Muammar
Qadhafi, the message will go to our NATO allies, the message will go to
every nation of the world that America does not keep faith with its
allies.
``America must lead. We must not equivocate. Such a course would
encourage the enemies of peace, the bullies of the world. People around
the world look to our country's strength in their struggle for
democracy and basic human rights.''
As it happens, I said that in 1999 when Clinton sent troops to stop
the genocide in Bosnia, and he did so and the authorization lost on
this floor, shamefully, 213-213, one of the darkest days I have served
in this institution. Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not repeat
that message to our NATO allies, to our European allies, to all the
world, that America cannot be counted on. At the same time, Congress
was voting to undermine their mission as they flew to Kosova.
In recent months, people across the Middle East have bravely stood to
demand that their government respect their fundamental rights. I have
stood with the gentleman from Indiana on behalf of human rights around
the world. The Libyan people, who have been subject to the dictatorship
of Muammar Qadhafi, who has more Americans' blood on his hands than any
other person other than Osama bin Laden in the last three decades, were
among those who insisted that enough was enough. Qadhafi responded by
unleashing widespread violence and threatening countless lives,
publicly promising to go ``door to door'' and kill those who stood
against him.
In response to this threat of Qadhafi's against those civilian
people, the European Union, the Arab League, the United Nations
Security Council, and a unanimous NATO called for action to protect
Libyan civilians.
{time} 1140
The United States is participating in this action both in order to
prevent brutal attacks against civilians and in order to stand by our
allies.
President Obama has made clear from the beginning that our allies
needed to take the leading role in Libya. We can't do it all, but that
does not mean we can't support those who choose and take the
responsibility of leading. NATO has done that, and to this point the
campaign against Qadhafi has proven successful. His exports of oil have
ceased, he is running short on funds, cabinet and military officials
continue to defect from his regime.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. China has just hosted the Libyan opposition in China, and
the opposition controls eastern Libya and is making progress in the
west. I believe that the wrong decision today will significantly
compromise that progress.
Qadhafi wrote us a letter in the last debate just some weeks ago and
thanked the House of Representatives for its debate. Is that the
message we want to send to Qadhafi? I think not. It would put civilian
lives at risk to withdraw. It would potentially stall the growing
movements for democratization, not just in Libya but across the Middle
East and, indeed, across the world. And it would severely undermine our
NATO alliance, as we all know. If we want our allies to stand by us in
our time of need in Afghanistan, we have to stand by them in places
like Libya. We are either in an alliance or we're not.
I do believe that President Obama could and should have done a better
job of consulting with Congress at the outset of hostilities, and I do
believe we are involved in hostilities. But I believe that we must, as
a faithful ally and defender of freedom, defeat the Rooney resolution
and support the Hastings resolution. America ought to do no less.
[[Page H4548]]
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and
colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. West).
Mr. WEST. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Very simply, the War Powers Act of 1973 states: ``The President can
send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by authorization of
Congress, or in case of a national emergency created by an attack upon
the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed
Forces.''
So as we look at the mission--or the perceived mission that we have
in Libya--it does not even meet this criteria.
I stand here today as someone who has been sent forth from these
shores in the 22 years that I've served in the United States Army. I
stand here as the son of a man who left these shores to go defend this
great country in World War II. I stand here as the younger brother of a
man who left these shores to go defend this country and fight in
Vietnam. And I stand here today as the uncle of a young man, a captain,
who has already done two tours of duty in Afghanistan.
Many of my friends have called me--some call me colonel, some call me
Allen--and they say, we need you to do one simple thing: understand
that the oath that you take is to support and defend the Constitution,
to support and defend the laws of this country. They need us to stand
up and be the guardians of the laws of this country.
Just before I came here today, I promoted Jerry Lee Stern to be a
major, and I read him that oath of office, that he would greatly take
what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great Nation,
uphold the laws and not send our men and women into an undefined and
unspecified mission. They want the fight; they want to stand up for us.
Let's do the right thing by them.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the Hastings
resolution and against the Rooney resolution for one person in
particular--three words: Jane Ann Morgan, a high school friend of mine
in Pasadena, California, who was on Pan Am Flight 103. She and 177
other Americans lost their lives 23 years ago, and we should not forget
them.
Qadhafi was Osama bin Laden before there was Osama bin Laden, and we
cannot stop until he is out of power and the 178 Americans who died and
the lives of the soldiers who were injured in the Berlin discos are
remembered. I will support the resolution and vote thinking of Jane Ann
Morgan today.
Mr. McKEON. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, the original mission
was not to get Qadhafi. The original mission, as explained by the
President, was to help, for humanitarian purposes, those civilians that
Qadhafi was threatening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman and also associate myself
with his remarks just now. We were told this is about protecting
civilians. It has become a cover for regime change. And just because we
can change a regime with military power doesn't mean we should do it.
And using military action doesn't mean that you're going to achieve the
objectives that maybe you haven't even clearly defined.
Furthermore, if our allies make a mistake, do we follow them? If our
allies are going out of the war, why should we go in? Right now, you
have China's foreign minister saying we hope the two parties in the
conflict can attach importance to the country and the people's interest
and earnestly consider the international community's relevant
resolution plans, quickly cease hostilities, and resolve the Libyan
crisis through political channels.
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League, said this 2 days
ago: Now is the time to do whatever you can to reach a political
solution that has to start with a genuine cease-fire under
international supervision.
The President of South Africa said a few days ago that this is about
regime change, political assassination, and foreign military
occupation.
Vote against this resolution.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I have said that I would vote for a resolution granting
authority to the President if it was appropriately limited and
conditioned. I would like to see conditions that require the Benghazi
Transitional Government to remove from their midst the al Qaeda
fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. I would like to see the
condition that we use the Qadhafi money that we seized, some $33
billion, rather than taxpayer money.
But putting those conditions aside, the one thing we almost all agree
on is that we would want to limit this to air forces and perhaps a
ground rescue mission if necessary. That's not what this resolution
does.
Section one grants authority to the President to do whatever he
decides to do, including armor divisions on the ground, in support of
the NATO mission. Don't be fooled by section 2, which provides the
President with non-binding, unsolicited advice that we think that he
should limit our ground operations to rescue missions and diplomatic
security.
This is a grant of authority to the President to put armor divisions
on the ground, if that's what he chooses to do.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the policy in
here, it says: ``Congress does not support deploying, establishing or
maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States
Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.'' The resolution clearly prohibits
ground forces.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will start out first by associating myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who I think laid this out clearly.
This is a message that goes globally. This is a destiny message.
The Speaker of this House understands his role. He understands that
all of America is watching us today. And even if I had a vote, I would
have said, no, don't go into Libya. If I had an opportunity to amend
this resolution, I would say let's limit the authorization to a shorter
period of time so that the President can come do what he should do. But
I believe that there are scores of Americans in their graves today
because this Congress sent the wrong message in several conflicts that
encouraged our enemy.
Clausewitz wrote: ``The object of war is to destroy the enemy's will
and ability to conduct war.'' And I would shorten that up to say, if
you can destroy their will, it doesn't matter what their ability is;
you've taken their ability with it.
But this message encourages our enemy. This resolution says that
Congress stands with the constitutional authority of the President to
be Commander in Chief and to conduct our foreign policy. We should
conduct our disagreement with the President domestically, not in our
foreign policy and not by limiting an activity that could abrogate our
NATO treaty.
{time} 1150
Mr. McKEON. May I ask how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 68,
regarding continuing operations in Libya. As a member of the House
Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I believe it is vitally
important for Congress to exercise strong oversight of the conduct of
military operations across the globe. It is for this reason that I have
supported measures requiring Congress to authorize the use of limited
military force in Libya to protect civilians and support the ongoing
NATO mission against Muammar Qaddafi, while prohibiting U.S. ground
combat forces.
The President, with the full backing of our allies, the Arab League,
and the UN, engaged our military forces in Libya to prevent a
humanitarian disaster that raised the specter of tragic episodes like
Rwanda and Srebrenica. While I am always reluctant to involve our
military in any conflict, I support the President's decision to protect
the people of Libya and uphold U.S. principles of political freedom and
[[Page H4549]]
basic human rights, when we have the ability to do so. I do not,
however, support any effort to involve U.S. ground combat forces in
this operation, and this authorization specifically prohibits ground
combat forces.
Earlier this month, Congress received a letter from Qaddafi praising
its criticism of President Obama over the NATO mission. The world
watches America, and what we say has a dramatic effect on not just our
own nation, but the safety and security of our allies and peoples
around the world. That is why I will also vote today against H.R. 2278,
which is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President and would
only heighten the appearance of divisions between the United States and
our allies. Abdicating the mission in Libya in this way emboldens
Qaddafi, harms our standing in a dangerous region, and will make it
more difficult in the future to rely on and partner with our allies.
I hope my colleagues will reject this measure and send a clear
message of support for our allies and for the principles of democracy
and human rights that make America great.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, engaging our armed forces is not a vote I
take lightly. Like many, I was reluctant to enter our nation into
another conflict. But the situation in Libya is different.
This is a nation where the people were giving their lives to fight
for a legitimate voice in their government. For these actions, their
murderous dictator vowed to hunt them down like ``rats and
cockroaches.'' Chilling words as Muammar el-Qaddafi is no stranger to
taking the lives of the innocent. He has more American blood on his
hands than any terrorist other than Osama bin Laden.
The international community sought our help in Libya. The Arab League
supports the NATO mission and this is historic, as it is the first time
the organization has supported an international intervention in an Arab
country. The United States' role can make a difference in Libya. To say
otherwise is to question the very values our own nation was founded
upon. I believe that our limited mission in Libya is needed and I stand
with President Obama.
Let's remember two things. The movement to overthrow longtime Libyan
dictator Colonel Qaddafi began with the Libyan people. The United
States should stand with the people of Libya and their fight for
freedom and human rights.
We must also remember that under Colonel Qaddafi, Libya was involved
in aircraft hijackings, extraterritorial assassinations, bombings at
European airports, and the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub popular
with American Armed Forces. Libya had a central role in orchestrating
and financing the in-air bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland in 1988, which killed 270 people, including 190 Americans.
Libya was also central in the bombing of French UTA flight 772 in 1989,
which killed 177 people from 18 nations, 7 of whom were American
citizens.
The violence of Colonel Qaddafi is known to many nations around the
world. In the early 1970s, Libya sent military troops and financed
extremist Palestinian activities in Lebanon. Libya gave safe haven to
Black September, the Palestinian terrorists that seized Israeli
athletes as hostages at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Later in the
decade, Libya sent armed forces into Chad and Uganda. Throughout the
1970s and well into the 1980s, Colonel Qaddafi either financed or
materially supported revolutionary efforts in Chad, Corsica, Eritrea,
Germany, Iran, Italy, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Japan, Lebanon,
Philippines, Sardinia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, and Tunisia.
Ending the reign of Colonel Qaddafi and his destabilizing influence is
in the interest of the world.
I've heard from many of my constituents concerned that our engagement
in Libya will become our next Iraq or Afghanistan. I share those
concerns and have expressed them to the White House and was assured
that our operations in Libya would be limited.
I have voted against the use of ground troops in Libya and my vote
today affirms that position. I do not believe that the United States
can afford to be involved in further prolonged foreign entanglements
and nation building. H.J. Res. 68 authorizes the limited support for
the NATO mission to one year. Would I be more comfortable with a
shorter timeframe? Yes, but so likely would Colonel Qaddafi. Nothing
would give him more comfort than a short deadline for him to cling to
so he can continue to slaughter his own people into submission.
The situation in Libya is unlike that in Iraq or Afghanistan. The
mission in Libya has broad international support. I've mentioned the
Arab League and NATO, but also the United Nations, the Gulf Cooperation
Council, the Libyan Transitional National Council, and former Libyan
Ambassador Ali Aujali support our mission. Traditional Libyan allies,
such as China, Russia, and Turkey, have begun talks with the newly
formed Libyan Transitional National Council. I strongly support the
building of international goodwill and cooperation as integral to our
nation's as well as global security.
My vote today is for the brave and courageous people of Libya. My
vote today is for continued rebuilding of our international reputation.
Mahalo nui loa.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 68.
This legislation will not end our military involvement in Libya. Both
simply maintain the status quo and appease Republican Members who want
to score political points against the President.
Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans have voted for deep
cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs. We could
better achieve deficit reduction by swiftly ending the Libyan war and
accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Congress has the power of the purse. Our nation has been at war in
Libya for 97 days and Congress has never authorized the conflict. We
need to completely defund operations in Libya and put an end to this
conflict. It is time for us to come together, use our constitutional
authority, and apply this critical check on the executive branch. At a
time when we continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot
afford to pursue another military adventure that is not in our national
interest. We must get out of this war now.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this toothless bill, and instead
defund operations in Libya in the upcoming 2012 Defense Appropriations
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
made a point of order against consideration of the joint resolution for
violating clause 11 of rule XXI asserting that the text of the measure
had not been available for ``72-hours.''
Unfortunately, the gentleman misstated the actual wording of the
rule.
Clause 11 states in relevant part that ``It shall not be in order to
consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a
committee until the third calendar day . . . on which such measure has
been available.'' The rule clearly counts days, not hours.
I would refer Members to the ruling of Speaker pro tempore Poe on
March 17, 2011 where he affirmed that under clause 11 of rule 21, an
unreported measure may not be considered until the ``third working
day'' on which it has been available to Members.
While the Chair was correct in his response that the rule provides a
waiver of all points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution, I also want to point my colleagues to House Report 111-114
which accompanied the rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 68
and H.R. 2278.
Under the heading ``Explanation of Waivers,'' the Committee states
that it is not aware of points of order against consideration or the
provisions contained in either measure and that the waivers are merely
``prophylactic.'' This means that no waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI or
any other point of order was necessary. That is because H.J. Res. 68 is
being considered on the fourth calendar day after it was made available
and H.R. 2278 is being considered on the third such day, fully in
compliance with the rules of the House.
I hope that in the future my colleagues will pay closer attention to
the wording of the rules in making points of order.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to
House Resolution 328, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123,
noes 295, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 493]
AYES--123
Ackerman
Altmire
Baca
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Fattah
[[Page H4550]]
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Levin
Lowey
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Moran
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (MI)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--295
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Bachus
Berg
Butterfield
Engel
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Higgins
Mack
Napolitano
Ryan (OH)
Stivers
Towns
West
{time} 1216
Mr. MARCHANT, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. CARSON of Indiana,
Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. LUETKEMEYER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. CLEAVER and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was in a meeting with a
constituent and inadvertently missed the vote on H.J. Res. 68, a
resolution authorizing for one year the limited use of the United
States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. Because of
the importance of this matter I would like to request that the Record
reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall
493 in support of the resolution.
Stated against:
Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
493. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H.J. Res. 68,
authorizing the limited use of United States Armed Forces in support of
the NATO mission in Libya.
____________________