[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13237-13238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IN THE FACE OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bentivolio) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a former soldier. 
Like many of my colleagues in this room who served, I took an oath to 
honor and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies 
both domestic and abroad. American soldiers do not swear to defend the 
President; they don't swear to defend Congress or political parties. 
They swear to defend the Constitution because this document is the 
bulwark that protects our freedom.
  American soldiers swear to protect this document because our Founding 
Fathers understood that elected officials, from the President to us 
here in the House of Representatives, are fallible human beings. They 
swear to protect this document because they know that the principles it 
defends are true and its wisdom will last long after we're dead, just 
as it lasted long before we were born.
  The Constitution of the United States of America is the key 
difference between us and other countries. It is what makes our Nation 
exceptional. Forged on the anvil of liberty, it has protected our 
Nation as we have grown from a fledgling Republic into a world 
superpower. The soldier that we ask to fight on our behalf knows that. 
We must honor our military by looking to the wisdom of the Constitution 
whenever we discuss sending our troops to war.
  The Constitution itself makes clear that we should go to war ``for 
the common defense.'' This statement, ``for the common defense,'' was 
so important that it was used twice by our Founding Fathers: once in 
the preamble, then again in laying out the duties of Congress.
  We live in a fallen world. Bad things happen to innocent people every 
day

[[Page 13238]]

across the globe. Drug cartels beheading people in central America, 
Christians being burned alive in Nigeria, human trafficking in Asia--
all of these things are heart-wrenching but none of them involve our 
common defense.
  When I see what is happening in Syria and read the intelligence given 
to us, I do not see how this terrible civil war involves our common 
defense. I understand the horrors of the Assad regime and it sickens 
me. It hurts to see the pictures of dead children brutally gassed by a 
hateful dictator. Yet the actions our President wishes us to take would 
do little to prevent such a man from continuing to murder his people, 
nor would help those our soldiers were sworn to protect--our 
constituents.
  In his farewell address, George Washington said:

       We may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by 
     justice shall counsel.

  There is nothing just, or in our interest, in lobbing a few bombs 
into a country and walking away.
  The Secretary of State and the President have both stated that we 
need to go to war because Assad broke a treaty that the entire world 
supports. The U.N., they say, cannot act. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the 
same question my constituents are asking: Why do we spend billions of 
dollars supporting an international organization for peace that cannot 
enforce a treaty supported by the entire world? If the U.N. is so 
hamstrung that it cannot rally the world to stop Assad and we have to 
unilaterally attack Syria, what exactly is the point of having a U.N.?
  The Secretary of State also had the gall to tell both the Senate and 
the House Foreign Relations Committees that bombing Syria is ``not a 
war in the classic sense.'' Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. If 
another nation attacked us the way our President wants to attack Syria, 
everyone in this room would call it war. Let me tell you something 
else, Mr. Speaker: war has consequences.
  The Secretary of State told the House Foreign Relations Committee 
that the goal of bombing Syria was to ``degrade'' Assad's chemical 
weapons and cause a stalemate in the fighting. In other words, Assad 
will still have the capability of using chemical weapons and could very 
well use them again to break the stalemate we create. Does anyone 
really think that we will just stop with the first round of bombings? 
That's not how war works. Wars are a ``yes'' or ``no'' question. You 
cannot, as Secretary Kerry and the White House suggest, only kind of 
fight a war. If we break it, we're going to be forced to fix it.
  Like I said, I'm an old soldier, and old soldiers need mission plans. 
When I look at this mission plan, I don't see anything that suggests we 
will simply be able to walk away after this bombing campaign.
  America's role in the world is not to play parent to the rest of the 
nations, chastising bad actors and picking winners and losers in 
battles that don't directly threaten us. The point of our Nation is to 
show the world the wisdom of a free and representative government.
  My fellow Members of Congress, we can show that wisdom here today 
with this vote. We can show the world that our Nation will not plunge 
itself into war because our President drew an artificial red line and 
feels embarrassed that a dictator crossed it.
  Our military does not belong to the White House. It belongs to the 
people. I ask you, show the power and wisdom of our Founding Fathers 
when they granted the representatives of the people with the decision 
to go to war.
  I strongly urge everyone in this room to vote ``no'' on attacking 
Syria and involving ourselves in their civil war.
  God bless America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________