Congressman Paul opposed military intervention into Lybia. Prior to the invasion, he cautioned that the no-fly zone would not entail a simple air action, but would require targeting ground forces. He cautioned that a no-fly zone was not an action to be taken lightly and was an act of war. He noted that the cost of enforcing the no-fly zone would contribute to the bankruptcy of the US and would not further US foreign policy as we could not ensure that the goals of those opposing Ghaddafi were just.
After military action commenced in Lybia, Congressman Paul introduced a resolution stating that Congressional approval was required for military action in Libya. He stated that it was black letter law and the intent of the founders was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States. He noted again that for the US to take action to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya and that for the US to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization. Congressman Paul stated that Libya had not attacked the US and that the actions in Libya amounted to a coup d'etat in a foreign country.
In May of 2011, Congressman Paul stated that the President's actions with respect to Libya represented the last nail in the Constitutional Republic of the United States as clearly stated law can be violated and war declared without the consent of Congress. He called upon Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority and end the war in Lbya.
In June of 2011, Congressman Paul supported a resolution to force the removal of troops and air power from Libya. He argued against those who cautioned that the Constitutional role of Congress should be reasserted gradually by stating that each member of Congress suddenly and radically assumed that duty to assert Constitutional authority when they took the oath of office.
Later in that month, Congressman Paul joined in a lawsuit filed by several members of Congress against the President of the United States requiring that the President cease action in Libya as it was not authorized in Congress.
Congressman Paul voted in favor of resolutions to remove troops from Libya and against resolutions to restrict funding for Libya. He noted that the resolution cannot restrict the use of appropriated funds to be used in Libya when no funds have been appropriated for that war to date.
In the debate in Congress about the authority of Congress and restricting the President's authority to use force, Congressman Paul noted that it was a bit silly to hold resolutions and decide what authority and appropriations when the Constitution is very clear that the Congress declares war, the House appropriates funds, and the President cannot act without Congressional approval.
The War is On
On March 10, 2011, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the fact that a no fly zone is not as simple as everyone is pretending. He notes that you must bomb anti-aircraft sites to maintain the zone, and you cannot simply leave at any given time. This means that the war is indeed begun with a no-fly zone. He also notes that the President cannot simply order military action, he must get congressional authorization. He notes that he intends to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that President Obama needs congressional approval.
NO-FLY ZONE: A CHALLENGE TO THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION -- (House of Representatives - March 10, 2011)
The important question being asked today with regards to foreign policy is should the United States impose a no-fly zone over Libya? There are leaders on both sides of the Capitol and leaders in both parties who are now advising this as well as individuals in the administration. It is my opinion that we should not. It would be foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very carefully before we go expanding the wars that we're already involved in. We're in two major wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and that involves Pakistan and Yemen already.
So to go into Libya now and impose a no-fly zone--we have to remember, a no-fly zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? Libya hasn't done anything to the United States. They're not a threat to our national security. There's been no aggression. There's no constitutional authority for a President to willy-nilly go and start placing no-fly zones over countries around the world.
We tried this in the 1990s and did it for 8 or 9 years. We had a no-fly zone, along with sanctions and blockades, around Iraq. Finally, it ended up with war. And the wars were based on lies. And then when that happened they said, yes, but it was well worth it because we got rid of a bad guy. But we also lost close to 4,500 American military people, 30-some thousand suffered severe injuries and hundreds of thousands are applying now for disability because we went to war when we shouldn't have gone to war.
To expand this war now makes no sense whatsoever. It's against international law. It challenges the War Powers Resolution. For that reason, we should stop and think. Congress should act. I'm preparing to introduce a resolution next week that it is the sense of Congress that the executive branch can't do this without approval from the Congress.
Why should we do this? Do you think it will cost some money? Yes, it is going to cost a ton of money. Innocent people will be killed. You can't just all of a sudden turn a switch and say don't fly over Libya; you have to bomb a lot of anti-aircraft sites and a lot of military establishments, so the war is on.
From my viewpoint, this is the kind of thing that has been going on too long. It contributes significantly to our bankruptcy, and we are now spending approximately $1 trillion a year maintaining our empire around the world. We are in the process of remaking all the borders and leadership in the Middle East and Central Asia, and now in North Africa we're getting involved. We have invested $70 billion trying to prop up a dictator in Egypt, and look at how that ended up. Now we are hustling around to find out who the next dictator is.
So if we get involved, I'm not sure they even know who to bomb and which one and who is going to come out on top. That is an internal matter. It is a civil war that is going on. We can cheer for one side or the other, but that is not a justification to place the burden on the American people, both militarily and individually, as well as monetarily. Some would say yes, that sounds good, I agree, and as long as we get approval from the U.N. and NATO, it will be okay. But, you know, that is just really a cop-out. What army and air force and technology does the U.N. have, and what does NATO have? You get a resolution at the U.N. that says let's take out this bad guy and do these things, or NATO does it. They are all of our airplanes and all our money. And no matter what, anything and everything that goes wrong, the United States will be blamed for it. There is enough resentment against us already for pretending that we can tell every other country how to live.
The best way to look at this, I believe, is how would we as a people and how would we as a Congress respond if we were a weaker nation and there was a stronger nation, if they came and imposed a no-fly zone over us or had sanctions against us or had a blockade. We wouldn't accept that. That would unify us. So I don't buy into this thing that this is the only humanitarian thing we can do, expand the war.
If we want to do something for humanity, we need a new foreign policy. We need a foreign policy that isn't built on militarism; it's built on more cooperation and more trade and not picking our dictators.
Look at what happened after we picked a dictator for Iran. Sure, it lasted for 25 years or so. But eventually it radicalized the Islamists and they had a revolution, and we came out on the short end of that. So I think it is time that we reassess this and think about a policy that makes a lot more sense. Economically, we need to do it.
No-Fly Zone Not Constitutional
On March 14, 2011, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the constitutionality of the no-fly zone in Libya.
No-Fly Won't Fly Constitutionally
Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.
Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.
Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.
Advanced Specific Authorization Required
On March 15, 2011 Congressman Paul introduced a Resolution he previously spoke about which expressed the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain authorization for the use of force before military action is taken as in Libya.
Introducing Sense of Congress Resolution on Intervention in Libya
Mr. Speaker: I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the president to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, ‘‘The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States.
Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to take action to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. For the US to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization.
Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d’etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.
I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established “no fly” zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in attempt to force him from power. When that did not work -- at a high cost in Iraqi lives -- the US ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleagues, was much higher even, in US military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the US “do something” about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue we only accelerate our economic collapse.
Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth to make their case for a US attack against Libya. I will strongly oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against Libya is to be initiated it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the US Congress.
End the Libyan War
On March 28, 2011 Congressman Paul used his weekly web address to discuss the invasion of Libya and the need to end the war.
The Last Nail
On May 25, 2011 Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about a number of issues and actions taken in violation of the constitutional limits on federal power. He notes that the last nail is being placed into the coffin of the Republic created by the constitution with the unended use of unauthorized force in Libya.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes.
The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies, and irrational good intentions. The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.
Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic?
Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and the political leaders of the unitary Presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President.
Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the Fourth Amendment; ignore the 60-day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Powers Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying.
And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bailouts.
And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through Congress.
Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as we should now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President.
Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds.
The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home.
The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and ``associated'' forces, a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies.
There is no denial that the changes in section 1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention.
Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II, beginning with the advent of the Korean War, which was fought solely under a U.N. resolution.
Even today we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton.
The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to: guarantee free trade and travel among the States; make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money; and strictly limit the executive branch's authority to pursue war without congressional approval.
But today: Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal; the Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the States; and now the final nail is placed in the coffin of congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President--a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic.
In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed, unless these recent trends are quickly reversed.
The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.
More sad is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding, our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experiment with liberty will end.
Supporting the Remocal of Troops
On June 3, 2011 Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor in support of H Con Res 51, which would force the removal of troops from Libya.
I rise in strong support for H. Con. Res. 51. We need to pass this resolution to send a very strong message.
We have been told by those who oppose this message that we should not have an abrupt withdrawal from the region, but I would strongly suggest that what we should be talking about is the abrupt and illegal entry into war. That's what we have to stop. Since we went in abruptly and illegally, we need to abruptly leave.
It has also been said by those who oppose this resolution that they concede that Congress should assume its prerogatives over the war powers but to do it gradually. I would strongly suggest that when we took our oath of office we assumed that radically and suddenly. We took an oath of office to obey the Constitution, not to defer to the United Nations, and that we already have assumed that responsibility.
I would also suggest, if we do nothing, if we do not pass this resolution, it is the sin of omission that we commit.
Filing of Lawsuit
On June 20, 2011 Congressman Paul used his weekly address to discuss a lawsuit he and other Congressmen filed to force the Obama administration to end the war in Libya since Congressional authorization had not been given.
Rejection of H J Res 68 and HR 2278
On June 24, 2011 Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor four times in opposition to the H J Res 68 and HR 2278. He notes that Congress cannot limit funding for Libya when it has not authorized such funding and he also notes that authorizing the use of force for the President when such for has already been used is not the function of Congress. The final speech is an extension of remarks made a few days later.
Mr. Speaker, later this morning we will be debating and voting on two resolutions dealing with Libya . The first one, H.J. Res. 68, has been said to be one that literally endorses exactly what the President has been doing, and I agree with that: Even though it excludes ground troops, it doesn't talk about Special Forces, CIA, contractors, and unlimited bombing, which is really what we have to restrict.
But the second one, H.R. 2278, has been said to be more strongly worded in restraint on the President, and this is where I disagree. I believe the wording is different. It says no funds for ground troops. But then it has exceptions, and the exceptions are for all the things that we're already doing. So I believe if we vote and pass the second one, it will be the first time this Congress has given authority to the President for what he is doing right now.
So I urge my colleagues to look at both of these carefully. I have concluded that not only should the first one be voted down, but it's very important that the second one be voted down as well.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this rule, although I have a lot of complaints about how we deal with the issue of war. This is a debate that should have gone on 4 months ago, before the war was started. And if we had done this properly, we wouldn't be bringing this up quickly today. No committee work, no discussion, no chance for amendment. But, nevertheless, I will support the rule because at least we get a chance to talk a little bit about what's going on in Libya .
We have two resolutions that will come up under this rule. The first resolution, generally, I understand most individuals aren't too keen on this, because it's a literal endorsement--a rather explicit endorsement--of the war, so obviously I oppose H.J. Res. 68. But my greatest concern is about H.R. 2278. The way I read this resolution is that it essentially grants the same authority that we grant in the first Resolution because we say that no funds can be used--it denies the use of funds. But how can you deny the use of appropriated funds when they're using funds that weren't appropriated? It's so redundant. The funds were never appropriated. So, yes, it's a good statement. You don't continue to be illegal, is what we're saying.
What I'm concerned about are the exceptions. All the exceptions are for the things that they're already doing, like search and rescue, intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, surveillance, refueling, operations planning, and doing everything except pulling the trigger. So we're legalizing the current war.
I believe that H.R. 2278 is the first time that we in the Congress are making a statement of granting authority to the President to pursue this particular war. I am in strong opposition to that resolution as well, although I understand the other side of the argument because it says ``denial of funds.'' The author of the resolution said the reason why we have the exception is to protect the integrity of our contract or agreement with NATO. Well, in the resolution it says we have to stop the funding because we don't want to support NATO's war.
So it's totally inconsistent. Makes no sense whatsoever. But it reminds me of the War Powers resolution. After the Vietnam War, we didn't want to get into that kind of war any more, so Congress, in its infinite wisdom, with good intentions, it designs the War Powers resolution, which legalized war for 90 days. That's part of the reason why we're here. We're worried about 90 days. But here we're going into the fourth month dealing with the War Powers resolution.
There is a simple solution to all of this, and that is to obey the Constitution. Don't allow our Presidents to go to war without a declaration of war, and we wouldn't be facing this problem of this debate that actually gets a little bit silly on restraining the President. Yes, we should. We should exert ourselves. We have the prerogatives, and we have the obligations. We have avoided it. It's time to stand up for the rule of law.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that endorses the policies that have been going on for 4 months. Not only has the Congress basically been strong in opposition to what has been going on, the American people are even more so. So what this resolution does is endorses exactly what has been going on--another unconstitutional war, involvement and justification under NATO and the United Nations, doing it secretly. There's an attempt to restrain the funding of this effort over in Libya . How can we restrain it, because we've never authorized it. Restrain unauthorized funds? The funds weren't authorized. The President just goes and does it.
What we're talking about here is the challenge for the Congress on looking at the unitary President. The unitary President has been around for quite a few years. That means that Presidents do what they want, and the Congress just acknowledges it. So that is what we're doing. This is what this resolution does. It acknowledges and gives authority to the President to pursue this war, which is actually what he has been doing. Obviously, H.J. Res. 68, for me, is a very, very strong ``no'' because the last thing we need to do is to be giving explicit support and explicit authorization for the very policies that so many people now think are ill-advised.
This resolution also says you don't send in ground troops. Well, that's fine, no ground troops. But in this day and age, war can go on for a long time without the ground troops. It happened to a degree in Bosnia. But it didn't exempt such things as special forces, the CIA. The CIA has been in Libya , and I'm sure they will be, as they are in many, many other hundreds of countries. Contractors. When we can't send in troops, we send in contractors. We have as many contractors in Afghanistan as we do the military. So a couple thousand troops come out of Afghanistan and nothing changes as we add more contractors. Nothing ever changes.
But this whole idea of this effort to legalize the bombing, at least give the authority to the President to continue this, is foolhardy. How many more wars can we withstand? What number is this? This is I think number five. Today, in the papers, number six is coming. How long before we're in Syria? Go into Syria tomorrow and in 90 days we'll start talking about Syria and proper authority.
Instead, we in Congress have given up our responsibility for war. Because the responsibility of going to war should have been and still remains constitutionally mandated that the Congress makes these decisions. The President is not supposed to get us engaged in war without Congress' authority. Too often we say, Whatever you need, we'll endorse it.
We have another resolution coming up shortly.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rarely speak on the House floor, and almost never have I ever come to the floor two times in one day to speak on this one issue. But this is my fourth trip to the floor today on this issue because I consider it so important and so serious.
If I could rename this bill, I would call it ``a bill to authorize the use of force in Libya .'' That is what we're doing. We should not kid ourselves--we are authorizing the use of force. We are endorsing the Obama war in Libya .
Some see this as weakening our presence over there, but there is no doubt, if you read it carefully, we are expanding and giving authority because of the exceptions. The exceptions include search and re-search, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, refueling, planning--contract labor probably can still go in, the CIA is in there already, special forces. And paying for it: How can you do all that without paying for it? So we are there.
This will be the first time the President will have received any information from the Congress that it's okay to pursue what we're doing. We're supposed to be sending the message that we're in charge of when we go to war and when we pay for this war. We're not just supposed to lie over and capitulate to what the President wants--as we have been for too many years.
So there is no doubt that I think the proper vote here, the proper constitutional vote, the proper vote for the best of our national interests, the best vote for peace is to vote this resolution down just as we voted the previous resolution down. We should prohibit the use of funds.
A lot of us complain on this House floor because of the way the President went to war--he didn't come here, he went to NATO. But this supports NATO. One of the arguments in favor of this bill is we have the exceptions, so we don't want to break ties and our allegiance to NATO. Well, that's what we're supposed to be doing, we're supposed to be reclaiming the sovereignty and the responsibilities here in the House. We are not supposed to roll over for NATO and the United Nations. We're supposed to stand up for this country.
We are not supposed to go into war under these conditions. And under those circumstances, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the President's illegal war on Libya , but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to H.R. 2278, the U.S. military cannot be involved in NATO's actions in Libya , with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the President would be authorized to use U.S. armed forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya . Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya , this bill would legalize nearly everything the President is currently doing there.
That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the President a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the President is doing in Libya would remain illegal.
Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for U.S. military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow U.S. force against Libya , any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority.
Voting Record
Restricting Funds for Use in Libya
On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a measure to prohibit funds for the Department of Defense (DOD) from being used for U.S. Armed Forces in support of the NATA Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning. The vote failed 180-238. Ron Paul voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.
Ron Paul voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.
Authorizing the limited use of US Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a resolution to authorize the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of the NATO mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The resolution states that Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of U.S. government officials or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger. The resolution failed 123-495. Ron Paul voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.
Ron Paul voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.
Removing Troops from Libya
On June 3, 2011 the House voted to direct the President to remove troops from Libya. The vote was bipartisan for and against, but failed 262-148. Ron Paul voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.
Ron Paul voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.
Resolution Against Troop Deployment
On June 3, 2011 the House voted on a resolution declaring that President Obama could not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. The vote passed 266-144. Ron Paul voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.
Ron Paul voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.
