Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor CWO-4 Bernard Litaker, Jr., CWO-3 Maciek Mankowski, CWO-3 Todd Peterson, Staff Sgt. Benjamin Tate, Staff Sgt. Stanley Yeadon, Sgt. Jason Brown, Sgt. Jeremy Gribble, and Spc. Matthew Jones who received the Distinguished Flying Cross for their extraordinary service and valor. I recently had the privilege to meet with the leadership of these eight brave servicemen of the 4th Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and believe that they have achieved the pinnacle of military excellence.

The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguish themselves through heroism above and beyond the call of duty while participating in aerial flight, an award which these men have undoubtedly earned.

On a late September 2009 evening in Afghanistan, these men embarked on a high-priority, high-risk mission that would necessitate that they put their lives at risk to protect other forces. The unexpected call required them to quickly develop and execute a plan, but the ensuing enemy fire would force them to adapt to the increasingly dangerous situation. The pilots gave heroic flying performances, expertly navigating their helicopters while calling out enemy threats to their gunners.

Upon completing their objective and reaching safety, they learned they would need to return for a casualty evacuation. Once again landing their aircraft mere meters from their target, the men held off enemy fire and successfully flew the target to safety. Facing seemingly insurmountable odds, not once but twice, these eight brave Night Stalkers demonstrated skillful flying and venerable courage in the face of danger.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in congratulating these eight brave men for their commendable service and thanking them for the sacrifices they have made for their country.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, Thursday, October 6, 2011, I was unable to be present for part of a series of recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 765 (on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 766 (on agreeing to the Waxman amendment), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 767 (on agreeing to the Rush amendment).

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Hahn

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my constituent, Elsa Hominda, for her outstanding advocacy for adopted children in Washington State and for being a 2011 Angels in Adoption honoree. I am pleased to join Senator Patty Murray in recognizing Elsa's dedicated work with local adoptees, their families, and birth parents.

Elsa is a Search and Reunion Specialist at the Children's Home Society of Washington, a non-profit organization devoted to strengthening and supporting Washington's children and families. Elsa and her husband are also the proud parents of three adopted children, ages 5, 11, and 12.

As a confidential intermediary at the Children's Home Society of Washington, Elsa acts as a neutral third-party to facilitate reunions between adoptees and birth parents. She serves as a counselor and mediator to the child or parent who is undertaking a search and helps to make what is often a very emotional and difficult process just a bit easier.

Through her work, she has helped many individuals. One personal story that I found particularly moving involved a gentleman who was placed in an adoptive home over 50 years ago and who recently embarked on the poignant journey to find his birth mother.

With the help of Ms. Hominda, this individual was able to reunite with his biological mother through a series of letters, emails, and eventually, a face-to-face reunion--a process that took several months. He is incredibly grateful for all the hard work Elsa did to facilitate the reunion and feels as though he has a new addition to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring Elsa Hominda, whose work reuniting Washington's adopted children with their birth families enriches the lives of everyone touched by the process of adoption.

Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of Tuesday, September 13, 2011, I recorded an erroneous vote on Final Passage of the bill H.R. 2218. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 705, on passage of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 12, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 699 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2076, as amended), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 700 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2633, as amended) and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 701 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1059).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize General James E. Cartwright for his forty years of accomplished military service. His unparalleled dedication to our troops and his visionary leadership in defense of our national security have left an indelible mark.

We have been extremely grateful over the past five years to have benefited from his thoughtful and candid advice and recommendations, and are grateful for his testimony at many Congressional hearings on our nation's security and the future of our Armed Forces.

General Cartwright hails from Rockford, Illinois. He graduated from the University of Iowa in 1971 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps shortly thereafter. The General served as a Naval Flight Officer in the F-4 and as a pilot in the F-4, OA-4 and the F-18. His flying career also included command of the First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan.

After an assignment as the Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J-8) on the Joint Staff, then Lieutenant General Cartwright was promoted to General and became the first Marine Corps officer to lead United States Strategic Command.

During his dedicated tenure as head of STRATCOM, General Cartwright led the development of strategies to counter a changed security environmental and rapidly emerging new threats, particularly in the critical areas of nuclear proliferation, cyber, space, and missile defense. His vision and leadership were essential to ensure that we are able to successfully and reliably meet the new challenges of a post- Cold War era.

We are grateful for his service during the last four years as the eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The General's leadership also contributed directly to the integration of technologies that enabled, as an example, the destruction of a failing satellite by a missile for the first time, and the successful and historic raid against Osama Bin Laden.

He reduced the loss of American lives in combat by facilitating the rapid delivery of much-needed new capabilities to the battlefield. Specifically, I would like to recognize his contribution to leading the MRAP program which resulted in a remarkable fifty percent decrease in deaths attributed to Improvised Explosive Device attacks. General Cartwright has been a bulwark in honoring the dedication and sacrifice of the 2.4 million active, guard and reserve members of the Armed Forces and their families, has steadfastly advocated for our wounded warriors, and kept the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on our battlefields in our hearts and minds.

General Cartwright's vision, dedication and invaluable leadership will prove a lasting legacy for the Armed Forces and for our country.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 27, 2011, I inadvertently did not record a vote during a series of recorded votes on amendments. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 653 (on agreeing to the Tonko amendment to H.R. 2584).

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 22, and Monday, July 25, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes due to a family commitment. I request the record show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 629 (on passage of H.R. 2551), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 630 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 363), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 631 (on approving the journal).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 601 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 33, as amended), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 602 (on approving the journal).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant 1st Class Jose Weeks of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division for earning the 2010 Gruber Award as the best field artilleryman in the United States Army.

The Gruber Award was established in 2002 to recognize the outstanding individuals who represent excellence among field artillerymen.

Sergeant Jose Weeks dedicates himself to strengthening his unit by training them to be prepared for any situation. On July 14, 2010, when his convoy came under attack, an improvised explosive device struck the lead vehicle in his patrol. One of the soldiers in the patrol was severely injured by shrapnel. By the time the medic arrived, the soldiers inside the damaged vehicle had already begun emergency care and had applied a tourniquet to the wounded soldier's leg--a practice in which Weeks had repeatedly drilled his crew. Their rapid response saved the soldier's life and demonstrated Weeks's effectiveness as a trainer. Saving the life of another soldier through effective emergency training merits Weeks receiving the Gruber award.

Weeks's Battalion Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Braley, confirmed, ``Sergeant First Class Weeks is an adaptable, flexible leader and a master artilleryman. . . . He can move from doing his core competencies to firing battery platoon sergeant . . . to conducting crew drills [to] IED patrol without skipping a beat.''

Jose Weeks is an exemplary soldier who is highly deserving of this award. It is an honor to recognize him for his leadership and commitment to serving in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in congratulating Sergeant 1st Class Jose Weeks on receiving the Gruber Award as the best field artilleryman in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel William ``Will'' Johnson, United States Army, on the occasion of his departure from the Army House Liaison Office to take Command of 5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. I, and many other Members of the House of Representatives, have had the pleasure of working with him over the past two years that he has served as a part of the U.S. Army Office of Legislative Liaison and as a Liaison Officer in the Army Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieutenant Colonel Johnson was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Field Artillery from the University of Richmond's Reserve Officer Training Corps in May of 1993. In January of 1994, he entered active military service when he attended the Field Artillery Basic Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Lieutenant Colonel Johnson's first unit of assignment was the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, where he served as a Fire Support Officer, Platoon Leader, and General's Aide- de-Camp.

Upon completion of the Infantry Officer Advance Course, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson was assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. During his first time at Fort Stewart, he served as a Battalion Fire Support Officer and a Battery Commander. While a commander, he led his men in combat during the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003, stopping first in Baghdad and finishing in Fallujah.

Upon his return from Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson married the former Jessica M. Parrish.

After graduation from the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson was reposted at Fort Stewart, Georgia. While living in Georgia, Will and his wife were blessed with the birth of their son, Davis. Lieutenant Colonel Johnson deployed once again to Iraq in 2007 as part of the ``Surge'' serving for 14 months as a Brigade Fire Support Officer and later as Battalion Operations Officer. Upon returning, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson and his family moved to the National Capitol Region for their current assignment in Army Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Johnson was selected by Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. as his Department of Defense Military Fellow in the Second Session of the 111th Congress.

Upon completion of his Fellowship, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson was assigned to the Army House Liaison Office informing and assisting all the members of this legislative body. Lieutenant Colonel Johnson has never failed to impress my colleagues and me with his energy and dedication to Soldiers, their families, and the United States Army. He is a superb representative of Army values.

It is my great honor to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel William ``Will'' Johnson on his service to the Army and our Nation and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of this Soldier, citizen, and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in support of this resolution. This is Congress exercising its authority as appropriate. And I agree with the people who say that Congress should do this, and I just wish we would understand that Congress has a certain responsibility in that regard.

Yes, the President should have asked us, but it's been over 3 months and this House has chosen not to act until now. I think it's appropriate that we are. I think we should authorize this mission in Libya, and I strongly support that mission.

Now, like most Americans, when this issue first came up, when the people in Libya started rising up against their oppressive dictator, I was very reluctant about the idea of U.S. military involvement, as I think we always should be. I think in the past we have been too over- anxious to use the U.S. military in places where it was not a good fit. We need to think carefully about this. And in every instance we need to strike a balance.

On the one hand, what is the positive impact that our involvement could have and, on the other hand, what are the risks of that involvement? I think there was a unique set of circumstances in Libya that made this make sense.

First of all, our involvement could have a very positive impact. We had international support. The U.N., NATO, the Arab League, everybody in the world wanted Qadhafi to be stopped from slaughtering the civilians who were rightfully standing up and asking for the basic rights that we take for granted in this country. In addition to that, our military budget is roughly equivalent to the entire rest of the world's combined. That gives us a unique set of capabilities. That unique set of capabilities was critical to stopping Qadhafi from crushing again the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Libyan people. If we had not acted, they would be crushed, many more civilians would be dead, and Qadhafi would be back in power. We cannot walk away from that responsibility and say that, well, yes, we don't like Qadhafi, we wish the people there would do well, but we simply don't want to support the action that is necessary to give them that opportunity. So in this case, I think the mission did make sense for that reason. The United States was in the position to make a difference and stand up for people who were asking for legitimate rights.

But then the broader question is, well, what does that have to do with the United States? That may be true, but it's true in a lot of countries. The reason this is so important is because of the broader movement that is going on, the so-called Arab Spring, people in Muslim countries rising up and demanding representative rights. That has an incredible impact on us. The greatest threat that we face as a country right now is from al Qaeda and their ideology. That ideology arose in part because of a whole bunch of repressive governments across the Muslim world that weren't providing for their people, a number of repressive governments, by the way, which the United States has in the past supported. We had an opportunity to do the opposite, to stand up for Muslim people. Let me tell you, in the history of this country, I don't think we've ever gotten as much positive press on the Muslim TV stations and Muslim media as we got for standing up to Qadhafi. This has been enormously helpful to us in that broader ideological effort. We had national security interests here for standing up.

Now as a House, I don't want us to stand up and say that we're going to

back down from that commitment that we made. Make no mistake about it, if we defeat this resolution and pass the Rooney resolution, we will stop the mission in Libya and empower Muammar Qadhafi, something that I know nobody wants to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, consistent with the policy in here, it says: ``Congress does not support deploying, establishing or maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.'' The resolution clearly prohibits ground forces.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The bottom line with this resolution--and I think the gentleman made a lot of very fair points. I certainly think that the White House could have handled it better in terms of communicating with Congress. But what this resolution would do that he has presented would be to end our mission in Libya. So all of the debates and arguments that you heard from the previous discussion apply to this just as well.

It has some limited options in terms of what the President could continue to do in support of NATO, but it very specifically disallows any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. It does allow for aerial refueling. It allows for rescue missions, but what the military has made clear is they will not do that without all of the other assets that are necessary to suppress enemy fire. We are not going to send up our aerial refueling apparatus or aerial refueling planes if we know we can't protect them from being shot down.

So the effect of this resolution is to, again, end the mission in Libya, and people have different opinions about where they should come down on that. I don't believe that we should end the mission in Libya. I do believe that Congress' voice should be heard on this issue, and that is why I supported the resolution that would have authorized that. So I don't think that we should stop what we're doing in Libya, and getting back to the previous debate, there have been some comments that have been made that I want to be sure and correct.

I think we have a much better idea of who the forces in Libya fighting against Muammar Qadhafi are than has been said, and we know this because they control roughly half the country right now. What our mission was able to do, it stopped Muammar Qadhafi from being able to crush the folks who are rising up against him and retake the territory that they have. So in Benghazi and in most of I think it's eastern Libya, it is controlled by these opposition forces, and by all accounts, they are running a very sensible government. It is not an Islamic state. It does not have al Qaeda influence. It has a bunch of people who are simply trying to exercise free expression that they have been denied for nearly 40 years by Muammar Qadhafi. We have a very good idea who these people are. They are precisely the type of people that the United States of America should be supporting.

And as I mentioned before, in our great struggle against al Qaeda, one of the centerpieces of it is ideological. The ideology that bin Laden and many others advance is very anti-Western, and their biggest argument is that the West has consistently supported governments that have repressed the Muslim people, that we have not been good for them, and there are at least one or two instances when that argument actually has some facts to back it up. And now we are presented with the chance to support a legitimate group of people who want basically what we have--democracy. They want the ability to vote for their representatives. They want a voice in their government, and we are going to pull the rug out from under them.

And keep in mind, this is a very limited mission. It is NATO-led, but we are offering critical support to make it possible, and if we vote for the Rooney resolution, we will pull all of that away and right at the moment--in fact, there was a newspaper story this morning about how Qadhafi is talking about leaving Tripoli because the pressure is getting too great on him. We have had continual members of the Libyan Government abandoning Qadhafi. He is ready to fall, and those voices of Libyan people who want the very freedoms that we all say we want for them are ready to rise, and we are going to reverse that by pulling out this minimal level of support that we are offering.

That is the effect of the Rooney resolution, and therefore I oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There are a number of arguments about this issue and arguments in favor of ending the mission in Libya. I think the Speaker articulated one, which is basically we support the idea of the removal of Qadhafi and they support the idea of supporting the people in Libya who are asking for a representative government. They just don't like our President's process. But that argument doesn't really make sense because if, in fact, their big complaint is that Congress hasn't had the opportunity to authorize this, then the Speaker of the House has had, by his own admission, a hundred days to offer that voice, to come up and say, No, we support the mission but here's how we want to limit it. They have not done that.

I agree very strongly with Mr. Berman's statements. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we would like to remove Qadhafi, we would like to support the Libyan people, but we're going to offer up resolutions that are going to stop that from happening. Now, we can argue back and forth about that process, but clearly the Speaker of the House had an option in front of him to deal with that process issue, and this isn't it.

As has been pointed out, this will stop what we are doing in Libya. If you support that--let me just say I support Mr. Kucinich in the sense that he is very honest. He doesn't like what is going on there. He wants it stopped. That's a legitimate position. But to stand up and say, Yes, we have to support the Libyan people; yes, Qadhafi should go, we're just going to cut the legs out from under the effort that would actually do that because of a complicated process argument is not a legitimate point.

I also want to point out people are legitimately concerned about the U.S. being too militant in our approach, and I agree with that. We cannot be the policeman for the world. We should not always carry the load. But in this case it is a very, very limited mission that we have. For once, NATO is actually carrying the bulk of the mission.

While I agree with Mr. Frank's comments from earlier that NATO needs to step up and do more, we finally have an instance when they are stepping up and doing more, and we want to pull the rug out from under them for the tiny little piece of help that we are giving that makes this mission possible. This is a limited role, and we must recognize that.

The Speaker also emphasized that we would like to have all the answers going in. We'd like to know what the mission to get rid of Qadhafi is exactly. Well, you don't always have all the answers, and this has evolved. Initially, our mission was clear: Stop Qadhafi from crushing the forces who are trying to rise up and have a voice in their own government. And we did that.

Incidentally, we do have some answers about who these rebels are. Do you want to know who they are? Look at Benghazi. What's going on in Benghazi, the place that is controlled by the people in opposition to Muammar Qadhafi? It is not the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not al Qaeda. It is the people of Libya wanting a representative government who are running that place. So let's stop acting conveniently like we don't know who these people are. We do have a very good idea who they are, and they are deserving of our support.

We have a clear, limited vision. If we vote for Rooney, we pull the rug out from under that mission. We put Qadhafi in a position to stay in power, and we undermine a group of people who are asking for a legitimate voice in their government. And keep in mind, again, this is a very limited use of U.S. power in a very positive way. Whatever the process arguments are that brought us to this point, don't let them have the United States look like we don't support people standing up for the very values that we continually espouse throughout the world.

I urge defeat of this resolution and support for what we are doing in Libya.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do thank both Speaker Boehner and Representative Kucinich for bringing these resolutions and bringing this issue to the floor because I completely agree that this is an issue that Congress should debate, discuss, and should ultimately express its opinion on. We have not done that. We are now past 90 days that this mission has been going on in Libya, and I feel we should have brought this up much sooner.

Now, I would prefer a much cleaner resolution that simply came out and made a resolution of approval of the President's mission and of the mission that we and NATO have undertaken in Libya and gave Members the chance to vote it up or down. In that sense, Mr. Kucinich's resolution is much more straightforward. It's a resolution of disapproval, but, again, it gives us the opportunity to at least debate the issue and express the will of Congress.

I do, however, oppose Mr. Boehner's resolution. I also oppose Mr. Kucinich's resolution because I don't think we should pull away from this mission, should pull out of what NATO is doing and the very important work that is going on in Libya.

Mr. Boehner's resolution doesn't do any of that, but it does rather boldly state that the President has not made a case for the mission in Libya, and I very strongly disagree with that assessment.

Now I will agree--and Mr. McKeon and I share the frustration--that prior to the launching of this mission, there was an inadequate amount of communication between the President and this Congress, indeed, between the President and the American people, explaining the reasons for getting into that mission; but since that time the President has made it very clear why we went into Libya.

We had a unique situation. I do not believe the American military should intervene in every conflict in every country. In fact, I don't believe it should intervene in almost any of them. It takes a unique set of circumstances to call for that intervention; and in Libya we had, I believe, that unique set of circumstances.

Number one, we had broad international support. The U.N., NATO, the Arab League all looked at that situation and said intervention was necessary.

Number two, we had a clear humanitarian crisis. There was no doubt at the time that we intervened that if we had not, Muammar Qadhafi would have slaughtered his own people and reasserted control over Libya. He made it clear that is what he was going to do. It was clear that the people rising up for the legitimate opportunity to be heard in their government did not have the power and the force to stop him. We did.

If we had not acted, there is no question that Muammar Qadhafi would be back in charge of Libya, and we would bear at least some piece of the responsibility--at least that is the way the rest of the world would have looked at it. We in the United States had the power and the force to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and chose not to act.

And that's one of the most critical elements in deciding whether or not to intervene: Can we intervene in a successful way? Yes, there are many countries throughout the world that face crises right now, in Syria, in Sudan, in the Congo, a whole bunch of places. But most of those places--in fact in all of those--there is no clear military mission that we could accomplish and achieve. In Libya, there was. If we intervened, we could stop Qadhafi from regaining control of his entire country.

At the time we understood there was no guarantee that that would mean that he would be driven from power immediately, but we could at least stop him from doing that. It was a humanitarian crisis that our actions could prevent. I think it made sense, and I think the President has clearly articulated that.

So for the Congress to pass a resolution saying they have no earthly idea what the President is doing in Libya simply means that they haven't been paying attention for the last couple of months. It has been made clear.

Now, I think it is appropriate that we ask the President to regularly keep in touch with us, let us know where the mission is going. I supported the resolution that said no ground troops in Libya. I think that is a step too far. I don't think that is something that would clearly be able to be accomplished militarily, so I do think that's appropriate.

But the part of this resolution that I must oppose is the part that says the President has made no national security case for why we should be involved in Libya. I believe that he has, and I don't think we should support a resolution saying otherwise. To have simply allowed Libya to fall apart and not helped a people that we could clearly help, that were legitimately calling for greater freedom and greater opportunity, I think, would have been a mistake.

So I will oppose the Boehner resolution, and I will also oppose the Kucinich resolution because I don't believe we should pull out of the mission. But again, I thank all of those involved for bringing this debate to the House floor so that we can have that debate so that we in Congress can assert our authority and express our opinion on this very, very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman from Virginia 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The President has said from the outset that our role in this mission will be limited; limited but critical. We are not committing troops, we are not committing the full force of the U.S. military, but what we are contributing, as Mr. Moran said, is absolutely critical to the success of the mission. We are supporting our NATO allies in making sure that this mission is carried out in a very limited and very critical way.

I just want to emphasize again that Muammar Qadhafi is not someone who is in the best national security interests of the United States of America. He has a long, long history of weapons of mass destruction, of supporting terrorist groups, of committing terrorist acts against United States citizens, and of in general being an unstable and destabilizing figure. When the people of Libya decided to rise up to throw him out, it was a very appropriate thing for them to do.

Now we all wish that Mr. Qadhafi would have gone quietly and simply-- that certainly would have been the easier way to go--but he didn't. And to protect those people who have legitimate aspirations for a better government, we needed to intervene militarily to assist.

Now I think in this instance the best thing about this is we were not alone. The Arab League, the United Nations, NATO, took the lead. There is a great deal of instability throughout the Middle East and that is unquestionably in the national security interests of the United States of America to do whatever we can to try and reduce that instability and make sure that we have friends, allies and also governments that legitimately represent the aspirations of their people. That is one of the greatest problems we've had. We have supported governments in the past in the Middle East who didn't have the support of their people. We need not just the support of governments, we need the support of the people in that region. This is a critical opportunity to gain that support. I believe that's clearly in the national security interest of the American people.

So, I do not agree with the gentleman from Ohio's resolution in saying that the President has not articulated a case. He has. We in the House should vote whether we approve it or not, but I don't think it is correct to say that the case has not been made. Let's have a vote in this body, as we will, on the Kucinich resolution, of whether or not to support what is going on there or not, but we should not simply be asking the President for something he has already provided.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Sergeant Michael Toussaint-Hyle Washington, a United States Marine who was killed with three other Marines while supporting combat operations in the Farah Province in Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device struck their Humvee on June 14, 2008.

Michael T. Washington was born on October 6, 1987 at Camp Pendleton where his father Michael Washington Senior served also as a Marine. Michael would follow in his father's and his grandfather's footsteps to become his family's third generation to serve in the United States Marine Corps.

Early on, young Michael Washington had a strong sense of faith and duty. As a student at Stadium High School in Tacoma, Washington, Michael enjoyed playing soccer, reading, playing practical jokes on his family, and was a member of Stadium's ROTC program.

While listening to a story on the radio with his father, Michael heard a journalist speak highly of the Marines after returning from Iraq. The journalist spoke of the Marines' virtues and bravery on and off the battlefield. Michael Senior knew his son was destined to become a Marine when his son turned to him and said, ``I want to defend people who can't defend themselves. It takes a lot for people to stand up and do this.''

Michael Washington did just that, joining the Marine Corps at age 17. On March 11, 2007, a year before his death, then-Corporal Washington's squad was ambushed in Iraq. Washington provided the support fire necessary to enable his fellow endangered Marines to escape the kill zone and return to safety. He received commendations from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines for Outstanding Achievement in the performance of his duties as Fire Team Leader of the 3rd Platoon, Golf Company. Washington was promoted to Sergeant soon after to become squad leader in the 1st Platoon at only the age of 20.

Sergeant Washington died a proud Marine while serving in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Forces. Michael is survived by his father Michael Washington Senior--a Seattle firefighter and former United States Marine, his mother Grace Washington--an artist, community activist, and teacher at Salhalie Middle School, and his sister Aja Collins--an Army veteran whose husband Erik recently returned from Afghanistan where he served with the 101st Airborne.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Michael Toussaint-Hyle Washington in honor of his love and sacrifice for our Nation.

In honor of Michael, I also ask that this poem, penned by Mr. Albert Caswell, be placed in the Record.

His Parent's Son!

His, Parent's Son!

This, most magnificent of all ones!

This, United States Marine . . .

So brilliant there . . . all in your most heroic shades of

green!

His Father's Son, who had so learned from his Father's Father

. . .

And, all of these ones!

As all three were but United States Marines!

As you Michael so watched your Father, growing up to be . . .

Just like him, as will be done!

Ooorah. . . . three generations of United States Marines . .

.

As all were but our America's very best, her cream!

As To Strength In Honor Michael, your fine heart would so

convene!

As They Will Be Done, on earth as in Heaven . . . you now

rein!

As Michael, you were but one . . .

Who so died and bled, one of our Nation's most golden of all

sons!

Such selfless sacrifice, and such brilliance. . . . Which

shines so bright, is so hard to explain!

Dying, for your fellow woman, child, and man. . . . As seen!

As you so stood so very grand, all in those magnificent

shades of green!

Teaching us so all about. . . . What the word love so truly

means!

As a Freedom Fighter, who so shined so bright there in heroic

shades of green!

As Michael, you live on. . . . all in our hopes and dreams!

Just, like the morning sun. . . . to you, our hearts so run!

Moments, are all we have!

To bring the light!

To fight the darkness!

To worship the good, and win that fight!

As you so boldly marched off to war!

All because of your most magnificent soul. . . .

As why for you Michael, we so mourn!

All at the loss of you, and for all of yours!

Is but just that high price of freedom, that for us Michael

you so paid!

And we so too suffer, living without you no more!

And across Washington on this night, as you so lay your head

down and begin to cry. . . .

And but our Lord's tears, for you Michael. . . . As he now so

weeps!

Knowing, of your most sacred gift. . . . And of your most

devout life so lived!

To ease your pain. . . .

So have a most gentle sleep, let not your hearts so weep. . .

.

For Michael is an Angel now, as ever with you to keep!

And you shall see him again. . . .

Enlisted, In the Army of our Lord. . . . Across the heavens

he so reaches. . . .

All because of Michael, what your fine life so meant!

Making A Difference With It All, as was how your precious

time was spent!

As you so lived and died, so benevolent!

Answering, that call to arms. . . . Your fine life so spent!

For, no greater pain can so be felt!

Then, to lose your only wonderful son, as before our Lord

you've cried and knelt!

As, I pray your most broken heart will heal!

Because, your fine son. . . . Your Marine Michael, so died

for what is right!

And what is real!

As you must remember, one day in Heaven. . . .

Your son's arms around you, you shall feel!

And if ever I have a son,

I but hope and pray, he could be like your fine one!

Michael, His Father's Son!

And Mother's only most brilliant one!

Amen!