Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Protection Act

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.

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 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.

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. 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.