[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4678-4679]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1020
                  LIBYA: THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A VOTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, a little over a week ago, the executive 
branch launched U.S. military force against yet another Middle Eastern 
country. This time it is oil-rich Libya. U.S. naval and air forces 
attacked Libyan military installations across that country, wiping out 
air defenses, intelligence systems, tanks, and also apparently is now 
targeting that nation's ground forces.
  Under what policy is the executive branch operating without a vote of 
Congress in expending millions of defense dollars and State dollars on 
offensive action taken inside a nation that did nothing provocative 
toward the United States. In fact, last year, Libya was even a 
recipient of U.S. foreign aid. The President's justification for this 
action was that it was not an act of war but, rather, a humanitarian 
mission to prevent a catastrophe that would have resulted from Libya's 
military forces under the command of Libyan President Muammar Qadhafi 
from taking the civilian center of Benghazi.
  Our President says he did not act alone, as French, British, 
Canadian, and other Western NATO members participated in these attacks. 
The President informed Congress that future operations will be handled 
by NATO. Well, who exactly decided all of this? Not Congress. If this 
is not an act of war, as F-16s fly over and bomb and U.S. naval forces 
shell, what is it?
  The President has further said he authorized this military action to 
enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973; yet on that resolution, 
many nations who normally are U.S. allies abstained from the vote, such 
as India, Brazil, and Germany.
  The President said he sought the permission of the Arab League before 
taking action. But in fact it was 3 days into the bombing when the 
press reported the Arab League said it had ``no objection'' to the 
bombing. So where in these operations have been the Arab League's 
planes and soldiers? And I might ask, where is the African Union's 
engagement? Why are they silent?
  It appears the administration consulted key allies from oil-dependent 
Europe, like the French, who dropped the first bombs, and the British. 
But the President didn't bother to ask Congress. We live in very 
strange and dangerous times. The administration says it made a couple 
of phone calls to Members of Congress serving in the leadership. Well, 
who exactly were they? And then the administration set up an after-the-
fact briefing for Members of Congress in the Capitol Visitor Center. 
None of these gestures meet the spirit or letter of the law under our 
Constitution relating to military engagement abroad.
  Yes, protest movements seem to be springing up across Africa and the 
Middle East, and we witness some Libyan rebels--though we really don't 
know exactly who they are or who is funding them--take to the streets 
to demand reform and an end to the Qadhafi government's grip on power. 
But we also see troops very loyal to the Qadhafi regime who are 
fighting to maintain that regime.
  So why is America taking a military role in an internal civil 
conflict without a vote of Congress on behalf of the American people 
whose sons and daughters are engaged in these operations? Should we not 
be clear and vote on whom it is we are supporting, for how long, and 
through what legal means?
  I and the entire world watched with horror the news reports of 
Qadhafi's troops attacking civilians, including shutting off food, 
water, and fuel, shelling cities and towns, and targeting innocent 
people for killing. Those responsible for these crimes must face 
justice for what they have done. But please tell me, where across that 
region do we not have dictators in charge of nations? Is America to 
intervene everywhere there is an uprising?
  Libya is certainly not the only African country facing a humanitarian 
crisis. We have all but ignored the situation in Cote d'Ivoire which 
has already displaced approximately 500,000 people, with triple the 
population of Libya. The crisis in Cote d'Ivoire would dwarf the 
violence in Libya. Would the President's logic extend there? Or what 
about the Congo? Or Sudan? Is it

[[Page 4679]]

America's new 21st century Monroe Doctrine to now intervene militarily 
under the guise of humanitarian aid wherever a President chooses?
  The crisis in Libya was several weeks old when the President chose to 
take action. Surely there was time to seek congressional approval. I am 
highly concerned that this military intervention took the familiar 
pattern of launching attacks just when Congress left town to go back to 
our districts for a week, thus silencing our voices in Congress even 
more as this floor was shut down. How premeditated and how 
irresponsible I believe the current course of events to be.
  I have sent an official letter to the Obama administration asking 
under what U.S. legal authority U.S. forces have been engaging in 
Libya. As a member of the Defense Subcommittee, I fully expect a matter 
of this nature would have been brought up before us. It never was.
  Moreover, what have the operations cost to date? And from which 
accounts are funds being taken? The Department of Defense claims it 
cannot create a civil works employment program to employ our returning 
U.S. Iraqi and Afghani veterans when they come home here, yet it finds 
money for this excursion.
  Mr. Speaker, there should have been a vote on the use of force 
outside our borders, not a notice after the fact. Anyone who is 
following the news has seen the reports of protest and unrest in 
multiple nations. Mr. Speaker, on the operations in Libya, there should 
have been a vote here.
  Does this Administration, like the last one, believe that it has the 
authority to take military action wherever it chooses in the Middle 
East? Could the President's same rationale extend to Yemen? Or Lebanon? 
What about Syria? How would the Administration respond to a similar 
situation in Iran? Or Pakistan? The list goes on.
  The simultaneous commitment of U.S. military force in multiple 
countries is a serious matter. And the Administration needs to be 
rebuked for its failure to appropriately engage Congress.
  Not only is Congress a co-equal branch. Congress and Congress alone 
has the Constitutional authority to commit the Republic in such 
matters. F-16's, Harpoon missiles, Apache helicopters, are all weapons 
of war not humanitarian assistance. And who exactly are the rebels we 
are favoring in this Libya incursion, and where is their funding and 
weapons coming from? Which interests do they represent? Mr. Speaker, on 
the operations in Libya, there should have been a vote here.

                          ____________________