Authorizing Limited Use of Armed Forces in Libya

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank our distinguished chairwoman for yielding and thank her for her leadership today and every day on human rights issues.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68.

You know, when U.S. intervention in Libya began last March, I raised--and I was among many--several still unanswered questions about our involvement. They included questions about the identity and the aims of the rebels, the varying Presidential statements that seemed to shift like the wind, the level of U.S. involvement, the possibility of Qadhafi retaliating against American interests outside of Libya, and whether U.S. ground troops might well be requested at some point, although the resolution seems to clearly say that that would not be authorized by Congress.

In the course of the debate over the constitutionality and viability of the War Powers resolution, these questions have remained unanswered. The President has refused to seek congressional approval of his action or even to provide a full explanation of his decisions. As the NATO campaign continues, new questions have arisen about U.S. participation and what is now NATO's involvement in Libya.

Let me just say mention was made a moment ago by Mr. Levin about Kosova and that somehow the Republican opposition to military action in Kosova was political. It absolutely was not! I remember because I was very involved in trying to mitigate the Balkan troubles. I visited there many times, visited with Milosevic, the dictator in Belgrade. Actually, I was in Vukovar right before it fell.

So, frankly, the statement that was made earlier I think did a disservice to those of us who were not supportive of the Kosova operation. There was no plan to war protect the Kosovar Albanians. We used air power. Milosevic invaded with ground trops. If Members will remember, that country's population was literally, literally pushed out into Macedonia and elsewhere--about 1.6 million refugees--because there was no plan when Milosevic sent in the ground troops and killed thousands of people because we had no plan to protect them. An estimated 10,000 people were killed.

So the revisionism that somehow Republican opposition to the war was a political calculation falls very, very far from the truth. And it's a cheap shot. I actually chaired hearings during the war and stated my oppositions based on principle, as did other Members. So I expect--and hope--unfounded revisionism would be avoided and that there would not be that look-back that does a disservice on the issue at hand to principled Republican opposition.

So, who exactly are we backing in Libya? What justification under international law is there for directing both U.S. and foreign government assets to a rebel entity that is not democratically elected and, therefore, not necessarily representative of the people of that country? We don't know.

In addition, a senior NATO official told CNN on June 9 that Qadhafi "was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign.'' Even though this was expressed as a NATO position, are we now to understand that the Obama administration is sanctioning the killing of foreign leaders? Again, pursuant to what international criteria or legal justification?

Mr. Speaker, again, I call on my colleagues to vote down this resolution that is offered, H.J. Res. 68.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source