[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN IN 
  ADVANCE SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF U.S. ARMED 
              FORCES IN RESPONSE TO CIVIL UNREST IN LIBYA

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 15, 2011

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing 
the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in 
advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States 
Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the 
administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the President to 
initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the 
Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, 
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not exist. According to this 
long-ignored section, ``The Congress shall have Power To declare War, 
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning 
Captures on Land and Water.''
  This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our 
Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the 
Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war 
if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not 
attacked the United States.
  Let us be clear about one thing: for the U.S. to take action to 
establish a ``no fly'' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute 
an act of war against Libya. For the U.S. to establish any kind of 
military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the 
airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires 
Congressional authorization.
  Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize 
that this is a coup d'etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we 
have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked 
the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an 
imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor 
violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.
  I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 
1990s we established ``no fly'' zones and all manner of sanctions 
against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in an attempt to force him from 
power. When that did not work--at a high cost in Iraqi lives--the U.S. 
ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I 
do not need to remind my colleague; was much higher even, in U.S. 
military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral 
standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to 
learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a 
bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again 
irresponsible voices are demanding that the U.S. ``do something'' about 
it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the 
world at our own peril, and as we continue we only accelerate our 
economic collapse.
  Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth 
to make their case for a U.S. attack against Libya. I will strongly 
oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against 
Libya is to be initiated it must be declared by the proper 
Constitutional authority: the U.S. Congress.

                          ____________________