Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H3886-H3887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXCEPTIONS TO POSSE COMITATUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the Insurrection Act was passed in 1807 and
signed into law by Thomas Jefferson as a delegation by the Congress to
the President of the power granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause
15 of the Constitution to call forth U.S. Armed Forces, number one, to
execute the laws; number two, suppress insurrections; and, number
three, repeal invasions.
In 1827, the President's power to do so was upheld by the Supreme
Court in Martin v. Mott.
In 1861, it was amended to add a section empowering the President to
use the Armed Forces against the will of the Governor of a State in the
case of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the
United States.
In 1871, it was amended again to allow the President to use U.S.
Armed Forces to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment and protect Black people from the Ku Klux Klan. President
Grant used it three times.
To get Democrat support for President Rutherford Hayes in this House
during the aftermath of the disputed 1876 Presidential election, Hayes
agreed to remove Federal troops from the South, which ended
Reconstruction.
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to limit the use of U.S.
Armed Forces in domestic matters, thus codifying the compromise.
{time} 0930
The Insurrection Act provisions are construed as specified exceptions
to the Posse Comitatus Act. As such, it has been used by Democrat
Presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John
Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.
Roosevelt used it to put an end to a Detroit race riot during which
25 Black people were killed, and over 400 were injured.
President Eisenhower used it to desegregate Little Rock schools.
Kennedy used it to end the race riot at the University of Mississippi
in 1962, after James Meredith, a Black man, was enrolled there. He used
it again in my home State when Democratic Governor, George Wallace,
disgracefully tried to block the enrollment of Vivian Malone and James
Hood, both Black people, at the University of Alabama. He also used it
to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Alabama in reaction
to the hate-filled environment around the State Wallace encouraged.
In 1989, it was used by George H.W. Bush in St. Croix in the
aftermath of Hurricane Hugo; and again in 1992, when the Governor of
California asked for assistance in the riots which followed the beating
of Rodney King.
It has not been used since. Nor did President Trump use it earlier
this summer here in Washington. All military personnel used here this
year were National Guard, the authorization of which was not needed
under the Insurrection Act in this Federal city.
Nonetheless, last week this House approved an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act to substantially weaken the
operations of the military under the Insurrection Act.
Let me be clear: Over the last 200 years, this law has only been used
sparingly and only under extreme circumstances, which is only
appropriate in a country which highly values the civilian control of
our military. Our Armed Services have a primary mission to protect us
from enemies without our country. They should rarely be used to do so
with people within our country.
This unwise House amendment forbids our military when they are called
out under the Insurrection Act from participating in search, seizure,
arrest, or ``other similar activity,'' unless ``otherwise expressly
authorized by law.''
Mr. Speaker, the Insurrection Act is the primary provision that is
expressly authorized by law. This amendment would effectively make the
Insurrection Act toothless.
Imagine General Grant cleaning out the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina
with the limiting language of the amendment.
Imagine Franklin Roosevelt quelling the Detroit race riot and
protecting innocent Black people with that limitation.
How about President Kennedy protecting Black students just trying to
attend their State universities in Mississippi and Alabama in the face
of violent racists and the Ku Klux Klan.
What is this House thinking? I submit, in this instance, the House
didn't think. It just reacted, as it has these last 2 years, with blind
indignation against President Trump. I say ``blind''
[[Page H3887]]
because I don't believe many would have voted for such language if
Hillary Clinton was President. Thank God the Senate didn't include this
language in their version of the NDAA.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the conferees from both Houses and both parties to
reject this rash amendment and for all of us to return to our senses.
Insurrections are rare but ugly things. Let's not tie a future
President's hands at a time when our people may need his, and our
military's, protection here at home.
____________________
