Libya War Powers Resolution
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya, and…
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), be allowed to control 15 minutes of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Libya. The President has failed to make the legal and constitutional case that he owes to the Congress and to the American people before committing American forces to a voluntary conflict. But the situation as it stands today poses an important U.S. national security consideration, and it requires this body to oppose this Kucinich resolution.
What are these considerations, Madam Speaker? These are: the sudden U.S. withdrawal from Libyan operations proposed by this resolution could do irreparable harm to the NATO alliance, and ultimately undermine support for NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Also, the longer Qadhafi is able to
cling to power and continue fighting, the more that he will destabilize the larger region. Conflict is already spilling over into neighboring countries--Tunisia, for example, which is undergoing a fragile transition of its own. Also, there are significant proliferation concerns at stake, including the need to secure Libyan chemical munitions and prevent the flow of heavy and light weaponry from leaking across the porous borders of Libya. Also, extremist organizations that pose a credible threat to American interests, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, already are exploiting the opportunity to arm themselves and organize.
So while I share the frustration of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned that an abrupt withdrawal of support for the NATO mission would have repercussions that extend far beyond the borders of Libya. Adoption of this resolution would send a signal to Qadhafi that if he can just hang on for 15 days more, the alliance will crumble and he can resume his destructive behavior and his destabilizing activities. In Egypt, the stability necessary to prevent extremist elements from seizing control could be compromised if the conflict in Libya remains unresolved.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, providing Qadhafi free rein by forcing the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the NATO operation would pose an even more virulent threat to such other allies in the region as Israel. An emboldened Qadhafi regime would be in a position to provide both destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons, as well as unconventional capabilities through new and existing smuggling routes to violent extremists in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, extremists who seek the destruction of Israel.
A U.S. withdrawal in a manner that is called for in this resolution, in fact mandated in this resolution, could have detrimental consequences for countries such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, who provide critical support to the United States and our NATO allies in Afghanistan. And, as operations experts from the Department of Defense warned yesterday, an abrupt withdrawal from Libya operations, as this resolution demands, would severely undermine support by our European allies for NATO efforts in Afghanistan.
In fact, it would have a detrimental effect on NATO's efforts in Afghanistan both in terms of weakening our mission partners and emboldening the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated elements. It would compromise the safety and security of U.S. forces that at this very moment are engaged in the battle against heavily armed enemy forces in Afghanistan.
Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, my daughter-in-law Lindsay served in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I also have two committee staffers, one in the Army Reserves and one in the Marine Reserves, who recently returned from serving a year each in Afghanistan. They have emphasized that the potential dangers to our troops there of a NATO pullout or a decrease of forces and assets in Afghanistan due to a need to refocus them on ongoing operations in Libya is indeed dangerous for the United States. They have emphasized that operations in Libya do not exist in a vacuum.
Recall that the House just this last week adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill to prevent U.S. military or private security contractors from establishing or maintaining a ground presence in Libya. Speaker Boehner has offered a resolution that we discussed previously that further underscores that the Congress does not support putting U.S. boots on the ground in Libya.
Now, many have argued that Congress needs to strongly exert its prerogatives under War Powers. We must do so, Madam Speaker, but do so in a prudent and responsible manner that protects the legitimate national security interests of the United States. This resolution, Madam Speaker, does not do so. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Yes, we will use the time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a captain in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.