[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 3740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         NO-FLY ZONE: A CHALLENGE TO THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. The important question being asked today with regards to 
foreign policy is should the United States impose a no-fly zone over 
Libya? There are leaders on both sides of the Capitol and leaders in 
both parties who are now advising this as well as individuals in the 
administration. It is my opinion that we should not. It would be 
foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very 
carefully before we go expanding the wars that we're already involved 
in. We're in two major wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and that 
involves Pakistan and Yemen already.
  So to go into Libya now and impose a no-fly zone--we have to 
remember, a no-fly zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have 
to participate in war activity against Libya? Libya hasn't done 
anything to the United States. They're not a threat to our national 
security. There's been no aggression. There's no constitutional 
authority for a President to willy-nilly go and start placing no-fly 
zones over countries around the world.
  We tried this in the 1990s and did it for 8 or 9 years. We had a no-
fly zone, along with sanctions and blockades, around Iraq. Finally, it 
ended up with war. And the wars were based on lies. And then when that 
happened they said, yes, but it was well worth it because we got rid of 
a bad guy. But we also lost close to 4,500 American military people, 
30-some thousand suffered severe injuries and hundreds of thousands are 
applying now for disability because we went to war when we shouldn't 
have gone to war.
  To expand this war now makes no sense whatsoever. It's against 
international law. It challenges the War Powers Resolution. For that 
reason, we should stop and think. Congress should act. I'm preparing to 
introduce a resolution next week that it is the sense of Congress that 
the executive branch can't do this without approval from the Congress.

                              {time}  1020

  Why should we do this? Do you think it will cost some money? Yes, it 
is going to cost a ton of money. Innocent people will be killed. You 
can't just all of a sudden turn a switch and say don't fly over Libya; 
you have to bomb a lot of anti-aircraft sites and a lot of military 
establishments, so the war is on.
  From my viewpoint, this is the kind of thing that has been going on 
too long. It contributes significantly to our bankruptcy, and we are 
now spending approximately $1 trillion a year maintaining our empire 
around the world. We are in the process of remaking all the borders and 
leadership in the Middle East and Central Asia, and now in North Africa 
we're getting involved. We have invested $70 billion trying to prop up 
a dictator in Egypt, and look at how that ended up. Now we are hustling 
around to find out who the next dictator is.
  So if we get involved, I'm not sure they even know who to bomb and 
which one and who is going to come out on top. That is an internal 
matter. It is a civil war that is going on. We can cheer for one side 
or the other, but that is not a justification to place the burden on 
the American people, both militarily and individually, as well as 
monetarily. Some would say yes, that sounds good, I agree, and as long 
as we get approval from the U.N. and NATO, it will be okay. But, you 
know, that is just really a cop-out. What army and air force and 
technology does the U.N. have, and what does NATO have? You get a 
resolution at the U.N. that says let's take out this bad guy and do 
these things, or NATO does it. They are all of our airplanes and all 
our money. And no matter what, anything and everything that goes wrong, 
the United States will be blamed for it. There is enough resentment 
against us already for pretending that we can tell every other country 
how to live.
  The best way to look at this, I believe, is how would we as a people 
and how would we as a Congress respond if we were a weaker nation and 
there was a stronger nation, if they came and imposed a no-fly zone 
over us or had sanctions against us or had a blockade. We wouldn't 
accept that. That would unify us. So I don't buy into this thing that 
this is the only humanitarian thing we can do, expand the war.
  If we want to do something for humanity, we need a new foreign 
policy. We need a foreign policy that isn't built on militarism; it's 
built on more cooperation and more trade and not picking our dictators.
  Look at what happened after we picked a dictator for Iran. Sure, it 
lasted for 25 years or so. But eventually it radicalized the Islamists 
and they had a revolution, and we came out on the short end of that. So 
I think it is time that we reassess this and think about a policy that 
makes a lot more sense. Economically, we need to do it.

                          ____________________