iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Lawmakers Draft Legislation To Defund Libya Operations


First Posted: 03/24/11 09:31 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are discussing several mechanisms to cut off funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, arguing that since President Barack Obama did not obtain congressional authorization, he is essentially waging an unconstitutional war.

Rep. Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) is one of the lawmakers leading the charge. He says that not only does he believe Obama should first have consulted Congress, he opposes and would have opposed any U.S. military involvement in Libya.

"I think this, combined with our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq ... just elevates hatred toward America and western democracies, throughout the Middle East. This is just one more nail in the coffin, so to speak," said Johnson in an interview with The Huffington Post, arguing that there's no connection between the conflict in Libya and the national security interests of the United States. He called Obama a "new war-mongering president who's belied everything he stands for and everything we thought we stood for."

But beyond national security interests, administration officials have also pointed to the humanitarian aspect of the crisis.

"[W]e cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government," Obama said Saturday when he announced the authorization of force.

Administration officials are not planning on asking Congress for a supplemental bill to pay for the military intervention in Libya, which National Journal estimated cost more than $100 million in Tomahawk missiles alone in its first day. "The operation in Libya is being funded with existing resources at this point. We are not planning to request a supplemental at this time," Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said Monday.

Nevertheless, critics in Congress believe that they have means to pull funding and bring the operation to a halt.

There are three main efforts floating around Capitol Hill while Congress is in recess, according to a Republican House staffer familiar with the situation. First was a nonbinding resolution by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) that expressed the sense of Congress that the president had to get the legislature's approval before using the armed forces in Libya. The measure had some bipartisan support, but it was never brought to the floor for a vote.

The next piece, which may be released as soon as this week, is a standalone bill that will prohibit the president from using force by the U.S. military in the Libya operation. The second part of that measure would be a provision to cut off funding, saying that no funds available to any department of the federal government may be used for the military operations. This legislation is being explored by the offices of Johnson and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), among others.

A third effort would be an amendment to the next continuing resolution, which will come up two weeks from Friday. This measure would be a rider to the temporary budget bill and would cut off funding for the Libyan operation. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) announced on Tuesday that he would be pursuing this path with an amendment either to the CR or the omnibus appropriations bill.

The White House was not immediately available for comment, but according to a pool report, White House spokesman Jay Carney told media aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that the administration takes the need for congressional consultations "very seriously" and will continue doing them. He added that some of their critics were being hypocritical, initially criticizing them for not moving fast enough and then later hitting them for moving too fast.

Johnson said that he's still exploring what would be the best route, since much of it depends on what has the best chance of making it to the House floor.

"Essentially, if leadership wants to vote on something, we'll get a vote on something," said the Republican staffer. "If they don't, they have ways to stop it. So Ron Paul's resolution last week had been introduced, but it hasn't gotten a vote. I don't anticipate that it will. We'll see. This is a fast-moving topic on the ground on Libya and among the House."

It's slightly easier to get a vote on a continuing resolution amendment, but the leadership still has significant leeway in that process. The first CR in the new Congress was an open amendment process, so any member could introduce any amendment and get a vote. The most recent one was not as open, however.

An aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The Huffington Post that since the legislation has not yet been introduced, it's too soon to say whether it will get a floor vote.

Johnson said that he and Amash have talked to a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who "believe this is a major quantum leap" in U.S. international involvement. "I think there's a good number of people who are going to do whatever they can to derail it," he added.

Josh Rogin at The Cable reports that the Senate could vote as soon as next week on Obama's decision to attack Libya.

"There may be some people who will try to end the [Libya] effort, if they try they won't come anywhere near success in the Senate," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during a call with reporters on Wednesday. "The reason I think the president will gain bipartisan support for his action is because he's proceeded in a way which is cautious, thoughtful. He has put the ducks in a row before deciding to put the United States in the lead for a short period of time."

On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent the President a letter saying that he and "many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a statement reiterating her support for the mission and adding the effort "is strengthened by the president's continued consultation with Congress."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are discussing several mechanisms to cut off funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, arguing that since President Barack Obama did not obtain congressional aut...
WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are discussing several mechanisms to cut off funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, arguing that since President Barack Obama did not obtain congressional aut...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,957
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (70 total)
10:02 PM on 03/25/2011
Would members of Congress please remember to behave like statesmen and refrain from frat house politics? We are part of a 28 member world alliance to help Libya. A frenchman in Florida complained to me when former prez. Bush "cowboyed" into Iraq. I demurely replied that we were"IN." Being a well-mannered frenchman, he understood completely.
photo
pdxist
Feel free to copy my avatar! (Or ask me how.)
09:15 PM on 03/25/2011
Petty people keep pretending the US is evil for saving Libya because Bush invaded eye-rack. Simpletons.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:41 PM on 03/25/2011
Listen to these hawks talking like doves....what has happened to change their minds from their warmongering ways...oh, I get it...they're not in opposition to war, per se...they're just opposed to a black man in a White House.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CajunMetal
03:34 PM on 03/25/2011
Bottom line is that Obama himself said in 2007 that something like this was unconstitutional and we ARE BROKE. I don't care if Republicans were saying he was moving too slow and now they don't want to move at all.

The difference is that while Republicans have changed their tune about this intervention it's been changed to something positive, like not being there. Obama has changed his tune to something negative and contrary to his own statements and the promises he was elected on.

We argue about what lawmakers do all the time and then when they change their minds we criticize them for 'flip-flopping' on the issue. Well I ask you, isn't it better to decided you DON'T want to be fighting a third front in the Middle East?
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:45 PM on 03/25/2011
So you're using the illegal war in Iraq to justify the idea that our military is too used up in places like Iraq such that we cannot exercise American muscle to enforce American values like freedom? When people cry out for freedom and ask us to be there, you would turn your back on them? Don't forget that in Iraq, they never asked for our help. Your people lied to America about weapons of mass destruction in your bloodlust for war and now that there is a legitimate reason for us to be in another country (the reason being that they asked us for aid) you want us to not help them? How far would OUR revolution have got without French aid? Nowhere. We'd still be speaking British. I say, close the OTHER two fronts and focus on the one place in the middle east that has ASKED us to be there. Or are you and your party just a great big fan of Gaddafi and want him to succeed? What, does he donate to the tea party or something? What makes Gaddafi so special that you want to see him remain in power? Why do you conservatives hate America and the world so much?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
senatortruth
Fox keeps me "INFROMED"!
10:25 AM on 03/25/2011
BoulderIntellectual

Well in Dubya's case the left was traitorous­.

With the big 0, any opposition to his majesty and the smears begin.

Huge difference­.
*************************************

Actually, with the Buhs and Cheeney, they ARE/WERE the TRAITTORS.

And Karl Rove made sure that ANYONE who questioned them were smeared.

Yup.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:46 PM on 03/25/2011
Not to mention the thousands of American citizens who disappeared for daring to have been born with Arabian blood....
photo
North2011
"He who knows best, knows how little he knows"
02:28 AM on 03/25/2011
Here you go for all the Obama apologists.... he LIED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_RWHiC7K3k
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:48 PM on 03/25/2011
He drew down the forces there exactly as promised. Getting us completely out is delayed by two years. So what? That isn't a lie, that is where idealism meets reality. A LIE is when a president cons the American public into believing that there is an imminent threat of danger in the form of a mushroom cloud.
photo
Donnat
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned
11:03 PM on 03/24/2011
HYPOCRITES!
09:30 PM on 03/24/2011
How can you defund what has not been funded in the first place? There is no DOD budget for this year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CajunMetal
03:29 PM on 03/25/2011
Well there are most certainly other costs in order to fuel, pay, and arm the forces we have in that area.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:53 PM on 03/25/2011
And republicans would take away the money required to feed, pay and arm our soldiers in order to score some points against Obama. These guys have nothing but contempt for our armed forces. This veteran is sick as hell of republican hypocrisy. You know, the VA was NEVER fully funded under republican rule because republicans look at soldiers as suckers and cannon fodder. The democrats, however, in 2006 fully funded the VA and lots of veterans groups (VFA, etc). The party who truly has our soldiers' back is the democrats. There is ample evidence in this current controversy to prove that point but if you aren't convinced check out VA funding levels going back as far as Reagan and you'll see which party supports our veterans and which one views them as cannon fodder. Remember how bad things got at Walter Reed (the Army's flagship hospital)? There were vermin infestations in the barracks where maimed soldiers who were wounded because of George W Bush's lies about WMDs were supposed to be recovering. How well would your stump of a leg recover when rats are gnawing on it? THIS is the kind of respect that republicans have for soldiers and veterans.
07:37 PM on 03/24/2011
As posted on my blog, http://commonsensicalamerican.blogspot.com/, Obama's failure to lead in this war has stripped America of any benefits from it. We cannot get any oil contracts, we do not have control over the operation and we cannot even get the goodwill from it because Obama is so intent on emphasizing America's lack of involvement in this war that it is associated with France when the US has spent all of the money. Its a disgrace and a failure to lead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Davwbaird
Brothers and sisters of the same mother
01:45 AM on 03/25/2011
says who? you? what joker.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oscartucker
"Let us march on 'til victory is won"
06:00 PM on 03/24/2011
Somebody help me here, please. Last week, when President Obama held his press conference about Libya, he was delayed because he was holding a meeting with "Congressional Leaders" before speaking to the nation (This was stated on MSNBC by Tamran Hall, saying that an aide explained the delay). Congress was on recess, so his "meeting" was via telephone with some of them. The press conference was carried by the main stations and cable stations (basketball game was being shown in the right corner, while the President spoke.)

My concern is this: If there was a conference with "Congressional Leaders", did any of them say, "You cannot join the UN in this effort without going to Congress and the people"?
Did President Obama just "do his own thing" after someone said this to him? Has any of those objecting said, "I told him he couldn't do that, but he didn't listen to me."
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:56 PM on 03/25/2011
Actually, up until Obama committed himself to helping out in Libya, the republicans were urging him to intervene. They didn't change their mind until Obama had already committed American power to the operation. They don't have any true opposition to Libya, they are just in opposition to a black man in a White House.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cave mann35
Like Obama NOW??
03:54 PM on 03/24/2011
What a load of crap this is . . . first he was acting too slow and deliberate. Now that he has the United Nation's support and is doing the same thing that GOP wanted two weeks ago, they want to defund the military operation? Really? Well unless you are going to go back in time (the GOP uses this mantra a lot with Obama) and not pay for the weapons after they were built and put on the planes and ships, how can you stop the commander in chief from using existing supplies of ordiances? We use a lot of materials for training exercises, so I guess if the GOP gets upset enough, they will defund a few training exercises too? While the world's citizens try to take back their countries from dictators and presidents for life, I guess we should include the GOP and anyone that doesn't want to pay their fair share to get our economy moving.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
05:57 PM on 03/25/2011
I say we ship all the republicans off to the libertarian paradise that is Somalia. They can enjoy life without government or taxes or regulation or safety standards or any of the other things they are trying to strip out of America.
photo
feo
huh?
03:01 PM on 03/24/2011
Who's Libya? Related to Dubya?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:52 PM on 03/24/2011
A question for all those who say Obama has not engaged in war on Libya:

If Libya launched missiles at the White House and at military installations in the US, would you consider that an act of war?
photo
LegendOfTheBrave
The truth is my sword, and facts are my shield
02:54 PM on 03/24/2011
That is a very fair question. Don't expect a well-reasoned or logical answer. We cannot question Obama's actions. We must remain quiet and obey, or be labeled a r@c_ist.
09:31 PM on 03/24/2011
Unlike when we questioned Shrub's activities. Then we were called traitors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Badfinger1
The fist of Goodness..lol
02:41 PM on 03/24/2011
...Pssst...let's just tell the republicanteaparty that Saddams' W.M.D. are in Lybia....lol....They fell for it once....L.M.A.O......Poor inbred fools....
02:48 PM on 03/24/2011
Shhh. Hillary got fooled also. is she inbread?
photo
feo
huh?
03:02 PM on 03/24/2011
Whole wheat or rye?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oscartucker
"Let us march on 'til victory is won"
05:50 PM on 03/24/2011
Is HRC a sandwich?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LIbislife
02:57 PM on 03/24/2011
um, the Dems fell for it to. Guess everyone except the independants are inbred. By the way, how was your date with your Mom last night?
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
06:01 PM on 03/25/2011
The dems in congress were given cooked data in order to convince them to come along. Bush claimed to them that he had proof that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was preparing to use them on us. He couldn't show them the proof of course because that was a national security issue. They gave him the benefit of the doubt. Is that such a crime? Of course, they would never do it again because now we all know what a liar George W Bush is. But at the time, they did not know that he was a liar who hates America. So we can forgive them for that. They weren't part of Dick Cheney's conspiracy to conquer the world, so they didn't have all the info.
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
02:40 PM on 03/24/2011
I do not understand (1) why some Democrats have decided to challenge the War Powers Resolution­, which was passed over Nixon's veto during the Vietnam war and (2) why some Democrats would hold up the previous administra­tion as a model to be followed by subsequent administra­tions. This is a perplexing and troubling developmen­t by some who claim to be on the left.
photo
Donnat
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned
11:05 PM on 03/24/2011
Blue dogs who should be voted out of office.