Michael Capuano on War & Peace Democratic Representative (MA-8)

No funding for Afghan surge; no funding for Iraq war

Martha Coakley also said she would consider it, but Rep. Michael Capuano said he would not. "I would vote for a tax for a moral war, if I thought it was right," said Capuano. "I will not vote, not only for taxes, I will not vote for funding for this surge, either, as I have not voted for the funding in Iraq, either."

Consistent and outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq

More sanctions against Iran and North Korea

A: Yes.

Q: Should the United States apply greater economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea if it fails to abide by its agreement to suspend its nuclear program?

A: Yes.

More military support for Afghanistan, but not financial

A: No.

Q: Should the United States increase military support for Afghanistan?

A: Yes.

Q: Should the United States trade nuclear fuel to India for civilian purposes?

A: Yes.

Q: Should the United States decrease financial or military support for Pakistan?

A: Undecided. Capuano says, "Pakistan remains potentially a crucial ally. I would condition aid on its actions."

Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.

The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy:
1. The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
2. The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
3. The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.

1. The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
2. US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
3. Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
4. Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
5. The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
6. The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
7. The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.

Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.

Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:
1. by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
2. if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay. The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.

Congressional Summary: Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for committing the following abuses of power:

• Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
• Article VI & VIII--Invading Iraq in Violation of H.J. Res. 114, the U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
• Article X--Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
• Article XI--Establishment of Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
• Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
• Article XVII--Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both US Citizens and Foreign Captives
• Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
• Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing Statements, and Violating Those Laws

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz: Impeachment is a lengthy process which would divide Congress and this nation even more deeply than we are divided right now. Referring this resolution to the House Judiciary Committee is the constitutionally appropriate process that should be pursued.

Rep. Ron Paul: I rise, reluctantly, in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.

Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted):
• Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
• Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
• Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
• Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
• Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
• Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
• Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.

1. affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
2. commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
3. commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
4. commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.

Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

• Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
• Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.

Member of the Out-of-Iraq Congressional Caucus.

The Out of Iraq Caucus was created in June 2005 to unite members of the House in favor of returning American troops from Iraq. The group's chair, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the following when announcing its formation:

"The Out of Iraq Congressional Working Group is a newly formed effort whose sole purpose is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our efforts will include the coordination of activities and legislation designed to achieve our goal of returning our troops home. Through floor statements, press conferences, TV and radio appearances and other actions, we will provide leadership for the American Public who has been waiting too long for our collective voices against the war."

In a speech on the floor of the House shortly after the group's first meeting, Waters emphasized that the group was not calling for an exit from Iraq on any specific date. Rather, she said it more generally opposed a continued U.S. presence in the country. Waters promised that the caucus would do the following towards this aim:

• Provide support to other members of Congress and caucuses who wish to leave Iraq.
• Provide support to citizens and organized national groups who wish to leave Iraq.
• Organize workshops and seminars for the purpose of encouraging an exit from Iraq.
• Travel across the country to explain the rationale for their position.
• Be available to meet with the families of service members who have been killed or injured in Iraq.

Terminate funding for Iraq War on Dec. 31, 2011.

A BILL: To prohibit the use of funds to maintain United States Armed Forces and military contractors in Iraq after December 31, 2011.

Congress makes the following findings:
1. The Agreement Between the US and the Republic of Iraq states that the deadline for withdrawal of US Armed Forces from Iraq is December 31, 2011.
2. The American people support the withdrawal of US Armed Forces from Iraq by the agreed upon deadline of December 31, 2011, and during the campaign of then presidential candidate Barack Obama, the President stated that he would end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.
3. It is estimated that the US will save tens of billions of dollars by bringing all US Armed Forces and military contractors safely home from Iraq by the agreed upon deadline of December 31, 2011.
4. Leaving US Armed Forces in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in US security interests, strategic interests, and economic interests.

STATEMENTS OF POLICY:
• It is the policy of the US to withdraw all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
• No funds may be used to maintain US Armed Forces or military contractors in Iraq after December 31, 2011.
• No funds may be used to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Iraq.
• No funds may be used to exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq.
• Exceptions: shall not apply to the use of funds for US Armed Forces for protection of the US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

Defund US military presence in Afghanistan.

It is the policy of the United States to ensure that funds made available for operations of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan are to be used only for purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan.

Funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law for operations of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan shall be obligated and expended only for purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of funds for the continuation of combat operations in Afghanistan while carrying out the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the use of funds available to carry out diplomatic efforts or humanitarian, development, or general reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

Voted NO on net neutrality: don't regulate the internet.

Congressional Summary: H Amdt 1141 authorizes training and equipping appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition; requires detailed reports (including progress reports) on the plan, vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end-use of provided training and equipment; and permits the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Statement in support by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA-25): I offer an amendment to HJ.124 to provide authority to train and equip elements of the Syrian opposition in order to defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and to protect the US and our friends and allies. ISIL is a clear and present threat to our allies across the Middle East and to the US. The President has requested the authority to train and equip nongovernmental entities fighting in the non-U.S.-led operation in Syria. There is no doubt that any strategy to defeat ISIL must contain a Syrian component. I believe that there are options to defeat ISIL in Syria short of a major U.S.-led combat operation. But the window of opportunity is closing.

Statement in opposition by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY-13): I don't see where the President needs authority to do what we are about to allow him to do because of a threat to the US. I haven't come close, in convincing [myself or my constituents] that training people overseas, that we don't know, to fight ISIS is in their best national interest. Already we have lost trillions of dollars and over 6,000 lives in this area, and I don't think we have yet to declare war. This honorable body [should] determine whether or not any enemy is a threat to the US and that we are going to go to war with them, that we should force every American to evaluate whether or not they believe that they are prepared to make sacrifices.

Legislative outcome: Amendment passed House 273-156-9 on 17-Sep-2014.