[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2150-2153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY VERSUS PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Jolly) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to 
address a very important matter regarding the role of the Congress. And 
I would associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) about the role that this body plays in trade but also the 
role that this body plays in foreign policy and matters of diplomacy.
  Every American watches the news each day. We all see the same 
stories, be it ISIS, be it terror around the globe. We know that we, as 
a nation, are engaged against a threat that, left unchecked, could 
cause great harm to our homeland and to American interests abroad. We 
also have heard in recent news the conversation about the Prime 
Minister of Israel addressing our Nation.
  We have seen the President's negotiations with Cuba, the President's 
negotiations with Iran, and it begs the question: What is the role of 
Congress in all of these matters, in these matters of foreign policy 
and foreign affairs?
  So I appreciate the opportunity tonight to discuss a view of our side 
of the aisle and many in this Congress. I will be joined by my 
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) shortly to specifically talk 
about the role that Congress provides in setting the direction of our 
Nation's foreign policy.
  This body is a coequal branch. We are established under article I of 
the Constitution, just as the administration is established under 
article II. We are coequal branches.
  This body, most every American knows, has the authority to declare 
war. This body does, this Congress does. We fund our diplomatic 
activities. We fund our military activities. We authorize the use of 
military force, as was affirmed by the President today in sending such 
a request to this body to ask for the constitutional affirmation of 
this body, of this Congress. And we do so routinely.
  So when we come across events where sometimes people question why 
Congress would inject itself into matters of national security, into 
matters of foreign affairs, let's revisit why and the important role 
that Congress has served.
  This body, this Congress rejected the President's negotiation of the 
Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920. This body rejected the 
President's negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999. 
This body did that, reflecting the will of our constituents, of this 
Nation. This body, very importantly, investigated the Iran-Contra 
affair. This body investigated the intelligence activities related to 
9/11. This body investigated the events of 2011 in Libya.
  We have the authority of the purse as well, as spending originates in 
this body. We have used that authority to limit the transfer of 
detainees at Guantanamo, over the objection of the President.
  We have used the constitutional authority of this body in matters of 
foreign aid and, at times, withholding foreign aid. Following the 
capture of Osama bin Laden and questions about Pakistan's role, this 
body responded by putting restrictions on that foreign aid. And, yes, 
this body provides billions to Israel as a matter of not only 
protecting the security of Israel but furthering our national security 
in the Middle East.
  So it is appropriate then to raise questions very respectfully and in 
a way that reflects our constitutional responsibility of the 
President's decisions at times. We are one Nation. We are united in 
providing for the security of our country, but sometimes we have 
different ideas. And it is okay to raise questions on the President's 
decisions.
  Consider the President's recent actions and the concerns of this body 
over the negotiations to return Bowe Bergdahl that involved the release 
of five prisoners from Guantanamo, in contravention of a law passed by 
this Congress and signed by the President. He provided no notice of 
that.
  We know that this President sent a secret letter to the Supreme 
Leader of Iran during a time of critical negotiations that many of us 
have concerns about and during a time when many of us have asked for 
additional sanctions on Iran, not fewer sanctions.
  We know this President has attempted to negotiate with the Castro 
regime to normalize relations in Cuba.
  We know that the President sent a message to Putin just before his 
last election, saying, If you just give me time and wait until after 
the election, I will have more flexibility. He delivered that message 
to the Russian President.
  So it is okay that those of us in this body have raised those 
questions.
  The President has the authority to do most of what I just said, 
although I object to his no notice in the Bowe Bergdahl case. But we 
also have the authority to provide oversight and to exert our role in 
this.
  So how do we do that? We do that in three or four areas that are very 
ripe right now for conversation, for debate, and in a way that attracts 
the attention and the interest of our constituents, of the American 
people that send us here to represent them.
  We saw today the President's request for an Authorization for Use of 
Military Force. I appreciate the President sending that request to this 
Congress. I believe we should have done that last September. I was one 
of a few Members of Congress who signed my name onto an Authorization 
for Use of Military Force that we introduced last Congress prior to the 
President sending his resolution to this body. I believe we had a 
constitutional responsibility to do that, as this body, to ask: Are we 
a nation at war? And if so, are we willing to incur the sacrifice 
necessary to win that war?
  I am encouraged that the President today, during his press 
conference, said that by working with the Congress and by negotiating 
on the language that we can make this resolution even stronger. And I 
think we will see that. I hope we will see that in the coming weeks and 
the coming months.
  The language in the Authorization for Use of Military Force that 
prohibits no enduring offensive ground troops I think causes much 
consternation for many in this body. Are we really going to pass a 
resolution that restricts the tools of our own warfare when it comes to 
providing for the national security of the United States?
  The President will have his opportunity to make his case. This body 
will have our opportunity to make that case as well.
  Limiting or sunsetting the authorization to 3 years I think is 
something that we should begin to talk about. It is okay for us to have 
to revisit a responsible Authorization for Use of Military Force in 3 
years so that we don't find ourselves with a President years from now 
relying on an authorization that can be 10, 11, or 12 years old. We 
need to have that debate in this body and represent our view of how we 
respond to ISIS because the President's view has created much concern.
  We saw at the National Prayer Breakfast that he suggested that the 
foundation of our response to ISIS needed to start with our own 
humility, by looking at our own history.
  I appreciate the academic conversation the President would like to 
have on that. But that sentiment, in itself, compromises our own 
national security, in my opinion, because it suggests that we first 
must look inward before responding to what is a pending national 
security threat, a threat to our homeland and a threat to our national 
interests.
  We need to have a debate whether or not we believe that an air 
campaign is sufficient. For the President to suggest that no ground 
troops will be required, that somehow that is a way of providing for 
the safety of our men and women in uniform, ignores the very risk of 
those who will be engaging in a dangerous air campaign and will 
continue to do so every day. And what

[[Page 2151]]

happens if we lose one of our pilots? What happens if one of our pilots 
is captured, like the Jordanian pilot that was captured and, as we all 
saw, the tragic end that he met? Are we, as a nation, prepared to 
respond and rescue? Are we going to put boots on the ground? Should we 
put boots on the ground? That is a debate we need to have.
  None of us are advocating for an extended war. None of us are 
advocating for putting men and women in harm's way. But if we are going 
to engage, as a nation, with our partners to defeat a threat to the 
United States, we need to have an honest debate about how we do that 
and not start the debate by restricting how we intend to do that.

                              {time}  1915

  We also have a role in the future of Guantanamo. I have introduced 
legislation, H.R. 654, which would prevent the President of the United 
States from handing over our naval base at Guantanamo to the Cuban 
regime without congressional approval. This is very different from the 
debate over the future of the prison and very different from the debate 
over the transfer of detainees.
  Mr. Speaker, this simply says that we, as the United States, have a 
naval station 90 miles off our shore, and when Raul Castro demands that 
we return that to the Cuban people and pay reparations to the Cuban 
Government as terms of negotiation, my legislation says, No, Mr. 
President, you may not do that without coming to this body to ask for 
authorization. Certainly, I would not lend my vote to that.
  I was pleased to hear testimony in the other body, in the Senate, 
when the administration said that is not a matter they would consider, 
but as we have seen in the President's negotiations in the past, it 
gives us reason to pause.
  My legislation would simply codify the restriction that says that the 
Guantanamo Naval Base may not be returned to the Cuban people without 
congressional approval.
  Finally, we do have a role in inviting a foreign leader to address 
this body, Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is fully appropriate as a 
coequal branch of this government to invite and to ask for Netanyahu to 
address us about his vision of security in the region, his vision of 
peace in the region--his vision of security--and also his vision of the 
current negotiations with Iran.
  No Member of this body should shy away from receiving an address from 
the Prime Minister of Israel. We should stand resolute--Republicans, 
Independents, and Democrats--and be here for that address and not 
insult the Prime Minister and the people of Israel by turning it into a 
political game of boycotting an address by the Prime Minister.
  We should be here showing our support for the security of Israel, for 
the people of Israel, and, yes, for the Prime Minister's leadership. 
This is appropriate. We can disagree with the administration without 
being disagreeable.
  As we engage in oversight, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we 
continue this dialogue, and we do, as the President very respectfully 
suggested, and I want to thank him again for the tone of his remarks 
today when he said he hopes the AUMF can be better by working with the 
Congress.
  I would ask for the same of the administration when our Speaker steps 
out and invites Prime Minister Netanyahu because it represents the 
interests of this body when it comes to Israel and to the current 
negotiation with Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined this evening to discuss this 
further by a fine colleague of mine in this body, Representative Rodney 
Davis from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Well, thank you to the gentleman from 
Florida for actually putting this Special Order together tonight and 
also for yielding me time.
  You brought up a great number of issues that I think are very 
important to many of us, regardless of whether or not you represent 
800,000 constituents in Florida or--like me--800,000 constituents in 
central and southwestern Illinois.
  I will tell you, David, that the other night, I was cleaning out one 
of my son's pockets in his jacket because I was throwing it into the 
laundry, and I pulled out a copy of the Constitution that he got at 
school.
  I flipped through it, and I reread article I, article II, article 
III, and the Bill of Rights. You learn something new each time. What 
you don't forget is that our forefathers who created this great 
institution understood that it took equal powers. It took equal 
branches of government to produce the freedoms that we here in America 
sometimes take for granted.
  It is exactly what you said about let's work with each branch of 
government. We can disagree without being disagreeable. You address so 
many issues. I would like to actually talk back and forth on some of 
those.
  Let's start with the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu. We have 
a tremendous disagreement on whether or not the United States should 
unilaterally enter into negotiations with the terrorist State of Iran.
  I worry. I worry what it means for America and what it means for our 
closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, if Iran finally was given 
access to a functional nuclear weapon. What would they do with that? 
Whom would they provide that technology to? It is something in a 
geopolitical sense that we have to be concerned about in our position 
as Members of Congress.
  These are issues that we have to put a check and balance on the 
administration to ensure that we are working towards what is the common 
goal for our allies.
  I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu's being invited to this great 
institution to come here to address the United States Congress, to 
address 435 Members of this House and many others, to talk about how we 
are working together as allies, I don't think that is an insult.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I say: What took so long? Why did it take the 
Speaker of the House to put the invitation out? Why did the 
administration continue to block this? These are the types of issues 
that we as an equal branch of government have to address in this body. 
That is why we are happy to talk about many of the other issues.
  You mentioned Guantanamo Bay. I am a proud cosponsor of your bill 
that is going to ensure that this administration cannot negotiate away 
the United States' ownership of Guantanamo Bay, regardless of whether 
or not the President is going to--which I think is a terrible policy--
regardless of whether or not the President is going to clear out 
Guantanamo Bay of the terrorists who are there because they want to 
hurt Americans.
  I think we need to ensure that there is a law of the land that does 
not allow this administration to negotiate away a very important base 
in Cuba that protects Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the types of issues, foreign policy issues--
ISIS is one that I know we will be able to discuss tonight and others--
but I am happy to begin a discussion on whatever it is you think is 
most important when it comes to America's foreign policy and our 
ability to be that oversight branch, that equal branch to the executive 
branch.
  Mr. JOLLY. I thank my colleague. Let's, for a moment, stay on the 
topic of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
  One of the reasons we take to the floor is to make sure that the 
voices are heard from all over the political spectrum. As the media and 
some in this body have gained the attention of the media by suggesting 
that the Prime Minister shouldn't attend, it is important for those of 
us who believe he should to take time to discuss why that is.
  Most people know and understand--but some people don't--the 
significance of our partnership with Israel and what it means in one of 
the most volatile regions of the world.
  This is a nation that has committed to democracy, to peace, to 
freedom, to representation, and to security; and they are doing so in 
an incredibly volatile region. All that they have asked of the United 
States over the years is that we stand with them in their own courage 
to promote peace, security, and freedom of their own people.

[[Page 2152]]

  I would say, as I mentioned earlier, for those who have chosen not to 
attend, I certainly respect that decision, but I think it sends a 
message that is wrong to say not just to the people of Israel, but to 
the Prime Minister himself.
  Not only is there a political message trying to be delivered by those 
that don't attend, but there is also this notion that, somehow, those 
of us in this body better understand the internal politics in Israel 
better than the elected leaders.
  Why should we not trust that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands 
what is best for his nation? Why should we try to suggest that we know 
better than Prime Minister Netanyahu what is right for Israel and for 
the people of Israel? To suggest otherwise is demeaning both to the 
Prime Minister, as well as to the people of Israel.
  I look forward to the Prime Minister's address, and I think this 
body, as we make decisions both about Iran sanctions but also about our 
aid to the people of Israel, I think this body has an opportunity to 
learn from the Prime Minister and to understand the issue better as we 
begin to make decisions.
  I look forward to the Prime Minister's address to this body.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Well, like my colleague, Mr. Jolly, I 
look forward to the Prime Minister's address, too. It is really beyond 
what I thought serving as a Member of Congress we would see here, and 
it is the sheer pettiness of the fact that the Speaker of the House 
invited the Prime Minister and many decided to say they are going to 
boycott this.
  Do you know what--boycott it. If that is your idea of your freedom of 
speech, go ahead. We will fill the seats. We will make sure that Prime 
Minister Netanyahu understands that America stands with him and his 
nation as our greatest allies in the Middle East.
  When that happens, he will come here, he will be received with a 
reception that is worthy of the Prime Minister of Israel, and I am just 
honored to be able to sit in this room and to hear why our bilateral 
relationship is of the utmost importance.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we didn't have this pettiness here in this 
Congress because I think the American people are sick and tired of the 
infighting. I think they are wanting us to govern together.
  This is just one more example that goes out to the American people 
that tells them that people in Washington in this institution can't get 
along. I hate to say it, but they are wrong on many issues because we 
do get along, but on this one, it is so important that we show respect 
to our greatest ally.
  Mr. Speaker, I notice we have been joined by our colleague from 
California (Mr. Valadao), who I think wants to participate in this 
discussion on Prime Minister Netanyahu also.
  Mr. JOLLY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, I had the 
opportunity to go visit Israel and actually spend some time with Prime 
Minister Netanyahu. That was, for me, probably one of the most 
enlightening trips I have been on, to have the opportunity to actually 
see what they are experiencing there and to see how important our 
relationship is to the folks there in Israel, but also to us here in 
the U.S.
  We learn so much from the technology that they use to protect their 
borders, to protect themselves from terrorists, and we see the 
situation that we have got going on with ISIS now today, and we need 
that relationship more than ever, something that can actually truly 
make a difference because we truly are under attack at all times.
  We have got people around this world--and now, we are hearing today 
in committee, it was mentioned that there are a lot of people within 
our own borders today, so it truly is a scary time.
  To have someone with the experience that Netanyahu has and to see 
what he has seen over the years and to bring that and share that with 
us here in our Chamber where we pass the laws, where we are here, sworn 
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, but also 
the people here, and that is our number one priority, and to have the 
opportunity to have him speak to us, I think, is an honor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to that opportunity. I think it is 
something that will help all of us here in Congress truly understand 
what we are up against and what needs to be done. I think it is 
something that most of us are smart enough to attend. There are a few 
that choose not to, but I think that is going to be a very small group 
of people.
  Again, Mr. Jolly, I appreciate the opportunity.
  Mr. JOLLY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  It can't be lost in this conversation about the pending address from 
the Prime Minister. As we mentioned, the security of Israel in a very 
volatile region, it is a region that is the center of much of the 
presence of ISIS.
  As we often see the political debate, the TV commentary, and the 
radio commentary about how we define ISIS, the fact is that if we are 
not willing to define our enemy, we will never defeat our enemy. We 
know that we face a threat, an organization that has declared war on 
us, and we don't get to choose the threats we face as a nation. We 
certainly wish we could. We only get to choose how we respond to those 
threats.
  The President's submittal of an AUMF request today is the right one. 
This body, I think, can have a very respectful debate about the terms 
of how we confront ISIS, about the authority, the authorization that we 
want to provide this administration for how he engages.
  I think the most critical thing we can do, though, is not tie the 
hands of our men and women in uniform and the leadership of our 
Department of Defense as they make decisions how to execute our 
campaign against this radical organization.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am, again, so proud to 
be joined by my colleague from Florida and my colleague from 
California.
  When we talk about ISIS, this is a true threat to Americans abroad. I 
have never in my lifetime seen such a savage organization who finds it 
entertaining to show the death of innocent civilians.

                              {time}  1930

  Let us also recognize that most of the civilians who have been killed 
by ISIS have been fellow Muslims. So it is not something that we here 
in America with our freedoms that we enjoy can comprehend. I think we 
have to do everything we can to eradicate them, to destroy them and 
ensure that they never get a foothold in any type of nation-state 
whatsoever because their plans will be to do one thing, and that is to 
kill Americans.
  Part of our job as Members of Congress is to come here and make some 
pretty tough decisions. These are decisions that none of us, when we 
stood up to get sworn in in this institution, thought we would have to 
make, but they are decisions that the American people demand that we 
make. We are being demanded to ensure that America remains safe here in 
the homeland and Americans should remain safe abroad.
  The President talks about a trajectory of peace. I don't know what he 
is looking at. It seems like a flat line of destruction to me. We have 
an opportunity now to put forth an Authorization for Use of Military 
Force, something I never wished that we would vote on in this House, 
but we are forced to by the failures of the foreign policy coming out 
of this administration in dealing with ISIS.
  I stood on this floor and I said I am willing to stand with the 
President, who told me this strategy of using air superiority and 
working with our allies on the ground was going to work. It is clearly 
not working. The last thing I wanted to do was stand here and offer up 
an opportunity for American Special Forces and ground forces to partner 
with allies to go in and defeat ISIS, but it may be the only chance we 
have.
  And this Authorization for Use of Military Force, I like the fact 
that it may expire in 3 years. Let it be reauthorized. But the fact of 
the matter is

[[Page 2153]]

we need the President to stand up and be the Commander in Chief. We can 
put any piece of paper in front of him and his administration that we 
want, but if he is not willing to do the job and be the Commander in 
Chief, to destroy, defeat, and ensure that America remains safe here 
and abroad, then he is not doing the job that he was elected to do.
  We will do our job. We will pass an Authorization for Use of Military 
Force, and we will give the President the opportunity to fight ISIS, 
but we have to make sure that our men and women in the military are the 
ones who are put at the forefront of what matters most, and the only 
thing that we should consider is that the American military, our 
soldiers, our men and women who fight for our freedoms, should be given 
the opportunity to do what they are trained to do.
  Let's not play politics with destroying ISIS. Let's actually allow 
our men and women in uniform to do just that. They can do it. They have 
done it throughout history, and that is exactly what we need to 
continue to do in this institution. Let's work together. Let's make 
this happen.
  Mr. JOLLY. I want to associate myself with my colleague's remarks and 
simply close with this. It is important to revisit the context of how 
we brought this up tonight. We are one nation. The President, the 
Congress, we are united as Americans, as elected officials of this 
country, to protect the national security of the United States.
  The point of tonight's Special Order is that just as the President 
exercises his article II authority, this body also has a responsibility 
to exercise our article I authority, and that is okay. That is why we 
have the greatest republic that has ever been on the face of this 
Earth. Because we can have these debates in a constructive way between 
a President with one view of how to respond, a Congress with another, 
but know every day that we as a nation, the President and this body, 
are resolved to eradicate the threat of ISIS from the face of this 
Earth. We will do that.
  As I mentioned, just as the President asks us to consider an 
authorization to use military force, we must also ask the President to 
understand our interest in how this war to defeat ISIS is executed. And 
on issues of Iran, Cuba, and others, we will work together. We will 
have our differences and disagreements, but we remain one United States 
resolved to protect the security of our interests.
  I look forward to a very healthy debate on these issues in the coming 
months.
  I yield to Mr. Davis.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman again for 
organizing this opportunity.
  I just want to remind all of our fellow colleagues, it is a privilege 
to serve in this great institution. These decisions that we will make 
will not be easy, but the decisions we make will be judged in history 
as to what happens here and what the future holds. Let's make sure that 
we make our forefathers and those who follow us proud to be Members of 
Congress. Let's do the right thing.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________