Providing for Consideration of H. RES. 292, Regarding Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Libya, and Providing for Consideration of H. CON. RES. 51, Libya War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House spoke quite clearly on the question of Libya during the debate on the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. By a vote of 415-5 on a bipartisan amendment offered by Congressman Conyers, the House voted against U.S. deploying ground troops in Libya. So the House has clearly stated its position on U.S. military operations in Libya.

But that vote did not touch upon two serious matters, each very much connected to the other. First is the fact that the President did not seek a congressional authorization for a U.S. military operation in Libya in coordination with our NATO allies; nor did the leadership of this House insist on one or pursue one.

Second, under the War Powers Resolution, the President has not sought the authorization of Congress during the required time period to maintain U.S. Armed Forces in military operations in Libya. Simply put, under the War Powers Resolution, the President must obtain congressional authorization for military action that lasts longer than 60 days. If Congress does not authorize military action, the President must withdraw troops within 30 days.

The 60-day authorization deadline expired on May 20, and the 30-day withdrawal deadline expires on June 19. Therefore, the Congress now has the responsibility to call for the end of U.S. military operations in the absence of a clearly defined authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee considered two resolutions: one offered by Representatives Kucinich, Burton and Capuano, which clearly addresses the violation of the War Powers Resolution and would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces from military operations in Libya. If passed by the House and the Senate, it would have the force of law. The other, offered by the Speaker of the House, is a simple H. Res, a nonbinding resolution, a document which is simply advisory in nature and relevant only as a statement of the House, which reprimands the President for failing to seek proper authorization for our military operations in Libya, asks for reports to provide the House with necessary information regarding national security interests and costs of the Libya operation, and then does nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. It again shirks the responsibility of this House and this Congress as a whole to either take up and pass an authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya, or pass a resolution requiring a withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to U.S. military operations in Libya.

Mr. Speaker, it's easy to complain, it's easy to lay blame, but it takes leadership to own up to our own responsibilities and take appropriate action, and it takes leadership to handle this process in a responsible way. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not do that. The Republican leadership rushed their resolution through the Rules Committee without any hearings and without any markup, violating their 3-day pledge to allow people to read the bill. So much for the new, open House of Representatives.

This would be sad, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so important. War is a serious issue. Whether we are sending unmanned drones, armed jets or American soldiers into harm's way, war must be debated and considered by the Congress in a responsible manner. The Republican leadership, however, is not treating this issue the way it deserves to be treated. This debate deserves better, quite frankly. The American people deserve better.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, just so we're all clear here, under the War Powers Act, if a concurrent resolution is passed demanding that the troops are removed from a particular country, then they will be removed, if you believe that the War Powers Act carries any weight, and I believe that the War Powers Act is relevant here. That's what the resolution by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does.

What the resolution my friends in the Republican leadership have drafted does is nothing. Your resolution doesn't even have to go to the Senate. It won't go to the Senate. It directs the President to do a whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, he can ignore, because this bill doesn't mean anything. What this is--and let's be clear about what this is--is this is a way for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to kind of cover their back sides, to be able to say to their constituents, We did something tough on Libya. Let me read to you how tough the language is in the bill that the Speaker of the House has drawn up. A lot of tough language. It sounds good. Except when you look a little bit more closely, you realize that this is an H. Res, which doesn't mean a thing.

So if you're into symbolism, if you're into therapy, you know, vote for the Boehner resolution. If you are interested in action, if you are interested in actually living up to our responsibilities as lawmakers in the United States Congress, then I would suggest that you look at the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has drafted.

You can talk all you want about how the Republican alternative here is somehow meaningful, but it really isn't. Again, I shouldn't be surprised. No one should be surprised here, because most of what they have done since they assumed control of the Congress has been meaningless, has been symbolic. Whether it's dealing with health care or jobs, which they don't want to talk about, you name it, a lot of it has been mostly symbolic. I think on the issue of war, we should take it more seriously and be more honest with the American people as to what we're doing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague, Mr. Scott, talked about the fact that I have supported House resolutions in the past and that, therefore, we should have more respect for the document that Mr. Boehner has put together. I have no problem with House resolutions. They state the views and the beliefs of Members of the House of Representatives.

But what I have a problem with is anybody coming to the floor and holding up the Boehner resolution and saying that it does something that it does not. What the Boehner resolution simply does is it just expresses the view of Congress. Even though it has pretty strong words in it, it doesn't require the President to do anything. He doesn't have to do anything if this thing passes.

The other thing I want to say, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee came on the floor here and just kind of pooh-poohed the War Powers Resolution as if it were just some other mere resolution. Quite frankly, I am stunned by his characterization. It is astonishing to me that he would come on the floor and say such a thing.

The fact of the matter is the War Powers Resolution is a joint resolution of Congress, passed by the House and the Senate. It was vetoed, and then it was overridden. It has the power of law. It is not just a mere resolution. So let's not put this on the same level as what the Speaker of the House has brought to this floor. It is two different things.

What Mr. Kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that Congress has under the War Powers Resolution. This is serious stuff. This is important stuff. If we are going to get our terminology straight, we ought to get it straight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her remarks, much of which I agree with--and I don't always agree with her. I especially appreciate her emphasis on the importance of the War Powers Resolution and how it applies here.

I again want to emphasize the importance of the War Powers Resolution because I was really surprised by the way the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee kind of diminished what the War Powers Resolution is all about. I want to read to you and read to my colleagues a section from a briefing paper that the Congressional Research Service put together. Let me just read this part here:

"Section 1 establishes the title 'The War Powers Resolution.' The law is frequently referred to as the 'War Powers Act,' the title of the measure passed by the Senate. Although the latter is not technically correct, it does serve to emphasize that the War Powers Resolution embodied in a joint resolution, which complies with constitutional requirements for lawmaking, is a law.''

What I find puzzling is that we're all talking about the importance of the War Powers Resolution, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, Well, that's why you need to support the Boehner H. Res, which, again, does nothing. I mean we could do a press release, and it would have the same impact that the resolution Mr. Boehner has introduced would have on the President of the United States and, unfortunately, on the President of the United States to do certain things.

Again, I want to emphasize that there is a War Powers Resolution. It is law. It is important that we understand that and understand we have a role in that. What Mr. Kucinich is trying to do is to assert the proper congressional role with regard to War Powers Resolution. What my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is, I guess, either provide cover for Members so they don't have to vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution or to make a statement, but it doesn't really do anything.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and I want to commend many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today who have spoken very thoughtfully about this issue.

But on this issue, quite frankly, we should have come together in a bipartisan way and crafted a bipartisan resolution and come to this floor as one and spoken as one. That did not happen because politics got in the way.

Anytime over the last several weeks, the Armed Services Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee could have reported out a resolution on Libya. They didn't. Mr. Kucinich came to the House with his resolution. It went through a process that would have compelled a vote. And all of a sudden, the Republican leadership got nervous, and they came up with the Boehner resolution in an attempt to undercut the Kucinich resolution.

If you question whether or not politics had anything to do with it, I would advise you to read the Politico piece that ran: ``Boehner told the House Republican Conference during a closed-door meeting on Thursday that he doesn't `want to turn the floor over to Dennis Kucinich,' the liberal Ohio Democrat who has been a driving force against the administration's military action in Libya.''

Okay, I get it. But you know what? We could have come together, and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee could have come together, and we could have crafted a bipartisan resolution and done something truly meaningful here. Because, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what political party a President may be. It needs to be made clear that Congress plays a role in war-making. And, unfortunately, in this case I think there's a bipartisan consensus that Congress was just ignored. And that cannot stand.

My problem, again, with the Boehner resolution is that it doesn't do anything. If anybody thinks that passing this resolution is going to compel the White House to do anything differently or provide us with anything that they haven't already provided us with, they're gravely mistaken. It doesn't force the President's administration to do anything. It's a strong statement. I think it's written in a very partisan way, unfortunately; but my friends on the other side of the aisle can do what they want.

But it reminds, I think, all of us who care deeply about these issues that there has to be a better way to do this. And on issues like this, we should come together in a bipartisan way and try to craft resolutions or joint resolutions that mean something and that both sides can feel comfortable supporting.

I also, again, want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for reminding us again of the importance of the War Powers Resolution. It is not just some mere resolution. It is law. It is law. And the reason why we are here today is because we believe that the War Powers Resolution needs to be upheld and that Congress needs to assert its proper role on this issue.

So having said all of that, I will urge my colleagues to vote "no'' on the rule because I think this process is not appropriate. I would urge my colleagues to vote "no'' on the Boehner resolution. And I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience on that.

But if you really want to send a message, let's not send a press release. Let's do something that resonates, that, once again, asserts Congress's proper role in this debate.

We're involved in too many wars. We're going broke. We're losing too many brave men and women in these conflicts. And in the case of Libya, I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wonder what the point is and what our mission is. It's not clear. That's one of the reasons why Congress should be involved. That's one of the reasons why there should be debate. We need to take this out of the realm of partisanship and kind of return it back to where it belongs. This should be a bipartisan issue here, and I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to do that.

So I urge a "no'' vote on the rule, a "no'' vote on the Boehner resolution. I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience on that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source