Congressional Authority Versus Presidential Authority
by Representative David W. JollyPosted on 2015-02-11
Tweet
JOLLY. 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.
[[Page H973]]
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.
{time} 1915
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.
[[Page H974]]
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.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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.
Mr. JOLLY. 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.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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.
[[Page H975]]
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.
