maybe or maybe not. but i am here to say, uncomfortable as it is, unpleasant as it is, how difficult it is, it is our responsibility to take action when it comes to declaring war. every member of congress should be voting for this resolution because of that simple fact and we can have other debates on another day. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. sherman: the author of this resolution is known for his opposition to the use of military force. those who agree with him on foreign policy may well vote for this resolution. in contrast i have voted for every authorization to use

military force that's come before this congress in the last 15 years and i would support the authorization to use force with libya if it had the proper conditions and limits. this resolution does not force, would not actually result in the immediate withdrawal. instead it would force the president to come to this congress and seek authorization pursuant to law. and would get that authorization, i believe, with the appropriate limits and conditions. that would be an improvement to our foreign policy. more importantly, it would mean we are following the constitution. the war powers act is the law of the land and it requires congressional authorization for military actions that take more than 60 days. we long for democracy and the rule of law in libya, but not at the expense of democracy and rule of law in the united states. if we don't require compliance with the war powers act, who will? and if the war powers act

becomes a dead letter, who will constrain some future president with imperial ambitions? if your constituents insist that you stand up for the rule of law, don't go back to them next week saying you voted for the boehner resolution. that boehner resolution does not mention let alone enforce the war powers act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sherman: 30 seconds? mr. kucinich: another 30 seconds. mr. sherman: the boehner resolution just grudgingly acquiesces to an imperial vision of the presidency. the kucinich resolution enforces the war powers act and starts us on a war powers act process. we owe it to our fighting men and women that when they risk their lives they do so pursuant to our laws and our constitution. when they risk their lives for an extended period of time, they do so not because of a decision of one individual, but rather because of the decision of the

representatives of all of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. dicks: the debate in the house today concerning the extent of u.s. involvement in the military action in libya now led by nato is a necessary and important debate. and i appreciate the role that dennis kucinich has played in this. both resolutions being considered today recognize the essential role of congress in authorizing and in funding the use of u.s. armed forces consistent with the war powers act and constitution. both resolutions require the members of the house to reflect on the appropriateness of the use of military force in this

operation as outlined by the president. and both resolutions initiate the entirely appropriate debate over the objectives of this operation as well as its duration. in my judgment the president's initial commitment of u.s. airpower and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within its power as commander in chief. the u.s. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, some of our closest friends, and it followed a resolution adopted in the united nations security council authorizing all necessary measures to protect libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of muammar gaddafi. the gaddafi government's response to the uprising was to use force against civilians in opposition forces and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the u.n. action.

at the time the president stated clearly our leadership of the nato effort would last a matter of days not weeks. while the direct u.s. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, u.s. forces remain engaged in the nato operation and at this point it is clear that members of congress are not comfortable with the extent of information they have been given about the direction, duration, or cost of the operation. under the war powers act the president has an obligation to report to congress and to seek concurrence if our military involvement extends longer than 60 days. and clearly such consultation has not been effectively accomplished. we are encouraged by statements from the obama administration that u.s. ground forces will not be used in libya. last week, 416 members of congress supported the conyers amendment to the defense authorization bill that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to deploy ground forces in the country. at issue now is whether congress

should act through the kucinich resolution to effectively terminate the u.s. involvement in the nato effort within two weeks. or whether congress through the boehner resolution should scold the president should not providing greater detail about specific u.s. actions, contributions of other nations to the effort. and the possible involvement of hezbollah and the muslim brotherhood, al qaeda, and other organizations in and outside the region in providing support to the libyan government. i believe that the kucinich resolution is premature and that it could materially harm our relationship with nato allies from which we will undoubtedly require -- mr. berman: additional minute. mr. dicks: i believe the boehner resolution is an attack on the president. something most of the republican caucus would vote against if its party was in control of the executive branch. i do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and cost of u.s. military forces

engaged in the libya operation. both in the defense and foreign affairs related committees here as well as in the full house. i am neither prepared to end our involvement unilaterally as in the kucinich amendment nor do i believe congress should officially declare our involvement in this effort that has not been properly explained by the president. i think the president made a very strong statement to the american people about why we weren't going to use this for humanitarian reasons, and i think the gaddafi regime is a brutal regime that should be replaced. i hope that we can accomplish that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: may i inquire of the chair how much time remains for all? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 45 seconds remaining. the gentlelady from florida has a minute and a half. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: members will be asked to vote on two resolution, h.con.res. 51 and resolution offered by speaker boehner, h.res. 292, both of which address u.s. military involvement in libya. i do not believe that h.res. 292 is at odds with h.con.res. 51, but it's not a substitute for the resolution that mr. burton and others have worked on and it's imperative that members clearly understand this because the consequence of voting for one that the speaker of the house resolution, and not the other, h.con.res. 51, is a big endorsement of unconstitutional action taken by the white house. how does congress deal with the failure of any president to adhere to the constitution? if congress does not challenge a president's dismissal of the clear meaning of article 1, section 8, then we will have

tacitly endorsed a president's violation of the constitution and guaranteed the perpetuation of future constitutional transgressions. a mild rebuke alone on the use of patience on a actually mandated war power is insufficient to defend the constitution. many of us want to support our president, but the president has ignored, congress' assertion of the war powers by failing to obey the war powers resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: just in closing our time in the debate, i would urge that -- i would take up mr. kucinich's comments if you think there's been an inappropriate abuse of power here, voting for

the boehner resolution does not cure that. but the constitution doesn't say the president must come to congress and get a declaration of war. it says congress must declare war. i agree very much with the thinking of my friend, the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers, that there are national security issues involved here as well as humanitarian issues and that's why i oppose kucinich, but the notion that the president has to come to congress when congress has the authority to address this issue directly through a declaration or authorization or a limited authorization is the right way to do it. and i urge a no vote on both the boehner amendment and kucinich amendment. the speaker pro tempore: all time expired for the gentleman. the gentleman from ohio seeks recognition. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: there are those

who may hesitate to support my resolution because of the supposed negative impact it would have on the nato mission and our image in the eyes of our nato allies. in the weeks leading up to the war, the administration had time to consult with the arab league, the united nations, the african union, but apparently had no time to come to this congress for approval. if our image in the eyes of nato is the reason to stay in libya, the administration should not have committed the u.s. to a war of choice without consulting with congress for an action that was so far outside that which is allowed by the war powers resolution. far more caging is the congress that ends up -- damaging is the congress that ends up being more concerned with the image in the eyes of nato than our fulfillment of our constitutional responsibilities and the continued use of the war power by the executive. our loyalty to nato and to our

president regardless of party affiliation does not trump our loyalty to the united states constitution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. anyone else seek recognition? the gentlelady from florida. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: may i ask the gentlelady -- ms. ros-lehtinen: if the gentleman would yield. we will use the time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has one minute. the gentlelady from florida has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: i want to thank all members on both sides of the aisle who participated in this important constitutional debate. what does it mean to defend the constitution? well, if you know that congress very clearly has the power to declare war, if you believe the president violated the constitution in this regard, then you cannot come to any conclusion other than to say that we stand up and defend the

constitution by voting for h.con.res. 51. let us also defend the founding fathers and the doctrine of separation of power. let us defend the doctrine of checks and balances. let us key fend the institution of the congress of the united states -- defend the institution of the congress of the united states. as we stand here having taken an oath to defend the constitution, this, my friends, is our moment to stand up for that oath, to act in defense of the constitution, i urge a yes vote on h.con.res. 51. i ask members on both sides of the aisle who i know are ready to step forward in this moment to join me. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very proud to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, a member of the committee on energy and commerce and a captain in the u.s. air force reserves.

mr. kinzinger: i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. ladies and gentlemen, we are at a moment in time, the middle east is awakening to freedom. they are seeing the opportunities that lay before them that we have experienced for hundreds of years. and they are begging for freedom. you know the greatest disinfectant to terrorism is not necessarily bombs, or armies, it's freedom. this war, this action in libya i believe sells itself. i believe it is in the united states interest and in the interest of freedom-loving people everywhere to support it. but, mr. president, you need to come to congress, and you need to say what our interests are there. and allow congress to vote on that because i believe the actions in libya sell itself. people all across are begging for this and in 50 years when boys and girls in school read

about the great awakening in the middle east and the wars and consternation we used to have to fight and now you are the bastion of freedom, let us be on the right side of history. let us be the ones that stood up to people that said we are going to throw off the reins of terrorism and dictatorship. this sells itself. thank you.6 c1 gentleman yield the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. address your remarks to the chair and not to the president. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 294 the previous question is now ordered. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it and the concurrent resolution is not agreed to. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. kucinich: correct. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the andrew. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. house resolution 292, house concurrent resolution 51. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the second vote in the series will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 292 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 292, resolution declaring that the president shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the united states armed forces on the ground in libya, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the

resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 26 . the nays are -- 268. the nays are 145 with one answering present. the resolution is adopted.

without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house concurrent resolution 51 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 51. concurrent resolution directing the president pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution to remove the united states armed forces from libya. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 148 and the nays are 265. the concurrent resolution is not adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to a privileged report for filing under the rule.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 2112, a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. mr. kingston: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 7, 2011, when the house adjourns on that day it adjourns to meet at 10:30 a.m. on june 9, 2011, and when it adjourns it meets on 2:00 p.m. on june -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the gentleman's report is referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. all points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i ask unanimous consent to remove steve stivers from house con.res 58. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to 2-u.s.c., 285, and the order of the house of january 5, 2011 the chair announces to the speaker's approval of law revision counsel for the house of representatives effective june 2, 2011, ralph.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

members, please take your coveringses off the floor. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the chair lays before the house the personal request. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

madam speaker, i rise today to congratulate the korean cultural center of chicago on a new center opening in wheeling. because of the hard work and determination of the korean cultural center, its president, young chang, and her staff, its board of directors and supporters, we now have a focal point for the korean american community in the chicago area. mr. dold: it's an important part of illinois' history and we are fortunate to now have a facility. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. will the gentleman proceed? mr. dold: we are fortunate now to have a facility that's a repository and an exhibition of that story. the new cultural center will add a rich cultural tradition to the village of wheeling and it will also benefit the neighboring communities. i hope that it will also serve to strengthen the important relationship between the united states and the republic of

korea. the opening of this new center is the culmination of many years of effort and is the cause for great celebration. congratulations and best wishes on many years of success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to request one minute, permission to revise. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garamendi: america's intervention in libya was initially based on the international community's responsibility to protect a mandate agreed upon in the wake of the horrific rwanda genocide. this important international doctrine calls for the international intervention in a country where a government is unable or unwilling to protect its civilians or is actively assaulting and killing inhabitants in that country. i agree with this doctrine, and america's initial response to the gaddafi threat to wipe out a large segment of the libyan

population. for three months the u.s. and nato have engaged in military action. at this time it is unclear if the mission is any longer one that fulfills the responsibility to protect doctrine or if it has changed into a larger and/or different role. given the continued military action and the lack of clarity of the u.s. mission's goal, i support resolution 292 which requires the administration to provide information on the american military diplomatic and humanitarian activities in libya and seeks clarity on america's objective and a strategy for that goal. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the speaker pro tempore: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to 44, u.s.c., 2702, i hereby appoint the member of the

advisory member on the records of congress the following person -- dr. sharon leon of fairfax, virginia. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. in the late 1880's men circulated fliers throughout the country about a place in the river valley of fertile soil and land, a place called yuma, colorado. the town had established itself a school, churches and a thriving ranging community. this year the town celebrates its 125th year, a community defined by the cycles of mother nature, the aquifer and energized by business men and women who are constantly looking for new ways to be successful. a little town on the high plains of colorado, population

over 3,000 people, yuma has been home to a u.s. open pga champion, professional football players, some of the nation's leading farmers, ranchers, and, yes, even a member of the united states congress. mr. gardner: yuma lies within the heart of agriculture. it is the leader in corn production. hailstorms, drought and wind. for a small town it seems like no matter where you go you find someone who's either from there, lives there or has family there. in many ways it's one of the biggest little towns of the nation. from the celebration in the fall and the yuma county fair, to high school sports and academics, it's an incredible place to live, to raise a family, to grow and to do business. i'm proud to call yuma, colorado, home. congratulations on 125 years and here's to wishing the people of that great town many more years of success. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from delaware rise? mr. carney: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carney: this week the republican and democratic caucus met with president obama to discuss the need to raise the debt ceiling. the president said we need to raise the debt ceiling soon and i agree. the -- defaulting on our debt is not an option for a great nation like ours. no one wants to send the economy into another tail spin. now is the time to restore fiscal discipline. that's what the markets and creditors expect. congress should attach a balance of broad-based budget plan to the debt ceiling increase. the plan should include smart cuts that would total at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years. the budget agreement should also protect important investments in a strong economic future. we can't delay any longer. we can't pass these tough decisions on to our children and grandchildren. the people that sent us here to

get it done and it's time for both sides to do just that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. while americans awoke this morning to the heartbreaking news that unemployment has increased to 9.is%, the u.s. economy only added 51,000 jobs within the last month. the american people are understandably concerned. but the numbers don't tell the tale. beneath those numbers are literally millions of american families who meet this morning's headlines with heartbreak and heartache because the opportunities just aren't there. the truth is more government, more spending, more regulation and more taxes of the recent past are stifling our recovery but nothing is stifling our

recovery more than runaway spending in washington, d.c. even as we speak today, congress and this administration are locked in a debate over increasing the nation's credit card, increasing the debt ceiling. and let me say from my heart, some people don't see the connection between the debate over debt and red ink and the debate over jobs but they are related. if we will take the decisive step to put our fiscal house in order we will restore confidence in capital markets and individuals will invest in ways that will put americans back to work. no debt ceiling without real and meaningful cuts in the way we spend the people's money in the short term and long term. get spending under control in washington, d.c., and we'll get this economy moving again. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker.

the speaker is to be commended for bringing these two bills to the floor. unfortunately we have a president who cared more about what the arab league and u.n. thought than he did his own elected congress. we have been kept in the dark about his decisions, the basis for them, and i vote no on our speaker's bill because he didn't need any more time. and the president should be aware, madam speaker, that there are an awful lot of people ready to switch their votes and vote yes. i would prefer that we not do it through the war powers. we could do like democrats did in 1974, just cut out the spending. it is ridiculous. he said enforce a no-fly zone, that's it. we wouldn't put ground troops in libya. he said that nato was going to take over and we wouldn't be

that involved. wrong on all counts. we know from the rules of the house the president wouldn't lie, but he sure is misrepresenting things. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: every member of this body, every elected official in the united states, every member of our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states of america. we do not take an oath to the president of the united states. the war in libya is the president's war. the constitution requires that congress declare war. the war powers declaration requires that congress be authorized and notified if the president leads us into war.

this has not occurred. the president's war in the name of humanity although it may be a good idea in the moral sense and gaddafi is a rotten person, it violates the constitution of the united states. it violates statutory law that we have passed, and it is incumbent on this body to stop the war in libya that is the president's war and not the war of the people of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: madam speaker. good afternoon, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: thank you, madam speaker. this house has just had a great constitutional debate about the meaning of article 1, section where the founders may it very clear that the war power is placed in the hands of congress.

this debate that occurred today is not an end, it's a beginning. it's a beginning because we have seen one resolution which derived its presence from a resolution i put forward on a bipartisan basis, one resolution passed which put the white house on notice that congress is beginning to take a more appropriate role with respect to the constitution. and that's a good thing. but make no mistake that this issue of libya is not going to go away. with the spending soon approaching $1 billion, with nato openly talking about commission of ground troops, we'll be back here another day to consider further what our appropriate constitutional role is. i want to congratulate members on both sides of the aisle, no matter how you voted. this is our moment to begin to reclaim the constitution.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. >> thank you, madam chair, just today we got the bad news again that the jobless numbers have gone up, our unemployment numbers have gone , much less -- much smaller job increases were created than were expected, and i think as we continue to see unemployment going up, over 9%, 9.1% according to the latest numbers, it's very clear that the president's spending and borrowing agenda has been a dismal failure. yet the president continues to go down that path. it's time for the president to start working with house republicans who have sent job bill after job bill to the president. and for whatever reason the lib brass in the senate don't want to create jobs. mr. scalise: one clear example is our state in louisiana where we lost 1,000 jobs because of the president's policies where they won't let our people go

back to work drilling safely for energy in america. we don't want to get our energy from brazil or the middle eastern companies, many of whom don't like us and use the billions we send to them to do us harm. we could keep the money here. there's a plan to do it. and plan after plan has been sent to the senate and for whatever reason the senate and president continue to ignore it. let's finally get our economy back on track. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? .

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011,, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. thank you very much, madam speaker. i believe that it is important when we finish what sometimes may seem as a complicated debate where both sides can seemingly make sense of when we've had the time or do have the time to reflect upon the week's work or the work and philosophies of the different political perspectives

in this house, it is very important to communicate with your colleagues. let me be as clear as i can be as i heard my friends on the other side of the aisle one after one claim that the libyan war was the president's war. well, today on june 3, 2011, the president of the united states happens to be president barack obama. but if you look at the constitution of the united states that provides provisions for the separation of powers, there is a section that arparticular late that the congress irrespective of any presidential person in place, declares war. so i would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle would they have been as quick to rise to the floor on the iraq war which could be called the bush war? or the continued 10-year plus

war in afghanistan of the bush war? when we discuss these issues for the american people, we have to be true to ourselves and the constitution. there was a reason why the founding fathers separated out the right to declare war. and that reason of course was to protect you, the american people, that when we send men and women into battle, it should be a deliberative process. but we should also have the right to defend ourselves. the initial attack in afghanistan that was the first act was in response to the heinous and horrific attack of al qaeda on the soil of the united states. from my perspective the immediate response of brush was legitimate. -- of president bush was legitimate. the question becomes what came afterwards. and the congress was never given the chance to declare war.

subsequently there was a statutory discussion and vote that gave unending, unending opportunities and authority for the war to go on and on and on. buried in the afghanistan decision was the authority to go on and on and on. the sad part about it was that we did not go on in afghanistan. we distracted our troops, and went into a war that saw the large numbers of our soldiers lose their lives and a war that has actually never been declared by the united states of america and the united states congress. we have something today in 2011 called the arab spring. but i don't think americans understand that. and they frankly believe that we

cannot promote democracy everywhere in the world. policymakers understand the crucialness of what is going on in the arab area as relates to the geopolitics, the political structure of the world. but i know what americans of good will do understand. the slaughter of a people. the slaughter and the misuse of power in bahrain. the misuse of power in egypt. the gruesome misuse of power to the extent that a mutilated body of a 13-year-old boy can be dumped in their parents' home in syria. and, yes, the violence in libya. americans understand that. and i understand it. so i applaud the president of the united states for going in libya to stop the horrific violence. he went in in coalition with our nato troops.

that same action occurred under president clinton going in with nato, taking the lead in this instance, in the slaughter of muslims in kosovo and the wars in bosnia. i so happen to have been able to go on an initial inaugural mission into bosnia, the former yugoslavia and croatia, and i walked the streets of sarajevo and i saw mothers who asked that they had not seen their sons for 10 or is it years -- 12 years and asked us where they were. it was a violent time. so the libyan action by the president was an appropriate one. he happens to be a democratic president. i applaud his actions. but the constitution is not labeled by democratic or republican. it has no provisions to exempt if you happen to be a democrat with a democratic president.

and so my values argue for consistency. and that is adhering to the constitution. i believe the resolution 252, mr. boehner's resolution that was crafted in the last 24 hours, was a nice statement about a report. but i don't vote on actions on the floor out of contempt and dislike for anyone. let me be very clear. i applaud president obama for the courage that he has taken in moving forward to establish america's mark as a believer in democracy and justice and encouraging the people in the arab states to stand up for their rights and to object and reject the oppressiveness of their regimes. and i hope that data becomes strategy -- strategic in what they are doing so we can be successful. but if we are going to be true to the constitution of the united states that is in fact

part of the document that we hold true, that we -- then we must hold any commander in chief to the same standard. the war powers resolution asks that the president of the united states comes to the congress in 60 days. the constitutional provision in article 2 requires that the congress declare war. one could argue that we have not declared war on arab states and we have not declared war on libya. we are at war. we are at war because al qaeda declares they are at war with us. so it is a dicey circumstance. i inted voted for the action to -- i instead voted for the action to occur under the war powers resolution that was just occurring today. a vote that we lost. a vote that i would have voted for under president bush, under president reagan, under

president carter. and with the opportunity under president clinton. as the wars proceeded to a long extent of time. however we are dealing now in the backdrop of a failed resolution, but i voted because it is necessary to be consistent on whether you believe the constitution and the authority of the congress and the separation of three branches is a valid one to protect the rights of the american people. . and i believe that. but my message to general gaddafi is this -- if you have any sense of human dignity left you will stop the murderous attacks on your people. i am sensitive enough to offer my sympathy to you for the loss of your family members because i believe in the value of human

life, but war is ugly. but every entree of peace that we have offered to you has been one that you've ignored. every effort that we have made rather than entree, every step that we have made toward peace you have ignored. you have arrogantly insisted on staying in charge while your country is in a state of confusion and disaster. you have opened the doors to the confusion and the violence of terrorist cells, al qaeda and our -- others who desire no good to you or your people. you've allowed groups in essence begin to spark so the continued frustration of world leaders in trying to bring resolutions forward but more

importantly the victim is on the backs of children and women. i feel a kinship to the libyan people, as a human being and whose heritage started on the continent of africa. we care about all people no matter what background they come from, no matter what country. i know that because i've had the privilege of representing a united states and south and central america, in the midwest, africa, some others because we care. mr. gaddafi, i speak to you as an africa, who knows that the african union would like for him to cease desist, stand down. i would ask and ask before, leave the country. let us find the kind of government that might in fact move libya forward.

and if your people decide that you should stay, then you should have a reformation and a change not only of mind but of heart. the violence does not get you anywhere and it is both insane and absurd. so i would hope that as this vote was taken that it is not in any way as was evidenced by these discussions in the debate by the republicans. it is not mr. obama's war. he is the president of the united states and the commander in chief. and it was a determination to go in to stop the murderous acts of those who were killing innocent people. read your early history. the early founders of this nation in the revolutionary war against great britain had other countries come to the aid of this little, tiny, baby series

of states that called themselves the united states of america. it has been the world order for centuries that big countries of those who are able will go to the aid of those who are not abled. and this vote today should not in any way deny the respect that is owed to the president of the united states. this is a vote premised on the constitution and reflecting the desires of the american people that we do not live in a dictatorship and that if you're a member of the united states congress come here and do your job and our job is defined by the constitution. so i believe that our duty was partly handled today, and i would encourage our president

as he has done over the stages of the afghan war and now through the redeploying of our soldiers that we are in engagement of discussion that gives us the road map for redeploying or moving toward a resolution in libya. i'd also join in the debate that i have just made on the question of libya with the need for the immediate review and designation of time for redeployment of our troops out of afghanistan. and the president has indicated that he expects that that redeployment will again in july, 2011. my plea to the president, as we look at these economic times, when america is crying out for jobs, when the middle class

feels slashed and unattended to, when others believe our jobs are not creeping offshore and overseas but fleeting and flying and literally by way of speed that is faster than sound it is time now to find the mutual coverage to say to the people of afghanistan that we have provided a duly elected government, a parliament, that we have laid down our lives, we have built up the afghan national security forces of which i was introduced to in the many times i have been to afghanistan including kabul, canned dar, places beyond. i know -- kandahar, places beyond. i know there are good people there. so i ask the president of the united states to ramp up the

redeployment, bring home 50,000, 100,000 troops and begin to let those troops rebuild their lives. invest in military readiness and preparedness and find a closure to the president of the united states boots on the ground in afghanistan. to president karzai, i ask you to stand up and be counted to initiate policies that would end the poppy growing and heroin production. to allow girls and boys to go to school. to produce your teachers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, generals, captains, leaders of government. i would ask president karzai to provide the funding and resources for your afghan national security forces. i'd ask him to weed out the taliban that is destroying his own people in the mountains of

afghanistan. and, yes, i would ask whether or not it is even possible that all of us could claim the value of peace, and by doing that it would not be noncramingous to stand up and accept the fact -- noncourageous to stand up and accept the fact that we have won in afghanistan and we have won in iraq and we thank our soldiers. so i am on the floor today thanking my colleagues because last week we voted 419 votes, 419 votes to declare a national day of honor for our returning troops from combat areas more than we've ever done in any other war and to celebrate them all over america. so i'm not asking for america to leave any battle place with their head held down. our valm vets during a very tumultuous time in a war we disagreed with should have been

welcomed home for their service, for their duties, for the reasons that they took up arms, not of their own accord but because a president called them, and i believe america learned her lesson as she focused now or as she focuses on trying to help our returning combat veterans with jobs and education and health care. we know that we should honor them, so the amendment i passed on the floor 419 votes, i hope the american people will call their congressperson, thank them but also ask that that proclamation be declared and that we have a national day of honor to welcome our soldiers home from all around the world in combat places. as we welcome them home, i think it is extremely important to recognize that america has a

number of concerns. those concerns are the tragedies that we face, the horrific loss of life in joplin, birmingham, tuscaloosa, all the flooding that's gone on, people in the united states are suffering. so what does it mean to raise the debt ceiling? what it means to raise the debt ceiling is not what americans believe, there they go again, spending, spending, spending. what it actually means is that we're saying to working americans and middle-class americans we feel deeply about your inability to pay a mortgage, to pay tuition costs. if you have one or two credit

cards with their old interest rates of 19%, 20%, 21% that we've been able to bring down somewhat because of legislation we passed, we understand that. if you don't have a job, if someone in your life doesn't have a job, we understand that. we understand folks that don't have a job but they don't have a job, a home, a car, a place to live. what the debt ceiling actually is is the ability to pay our bills. it is not the ability to spend and find ways to spend moneys unnecessarily. it is the ability to create the jobs that america's crying out for. the 9% is not a reflection so much of the president of the united states not desiring and

working hard to create jobs. let me remind my colleagues that it was democrats and the president that helped to in essence provide a safety net for the automobile industry. a lot of people complained about that. but we were in the middle of a fight not to pay special interests off but we were in the fight to save the auto industry of the united states of america. it was the right thing to do. two big reasons. one, the infrastructure of automobile buildings was car dealerships across america that had thousands, millions of workers selling american cars. you let that industry collapse and you would let in essence some small town in america literally have no economy. it might have been the picard

dealership was the largest business in that area. i'll add three. the second is we obligated the industry to pay us back and we have been paid back. we have been. the united states taxpayers have been paid back. and you know what else? they have actually brought jobs back to the united states of america. if i wasn't in this very agust place i would say hallelujah, celebrate, applaud. jobs have been brought back to the united states, and i think some of you, ford, of course, did not take those resources. we applaud them. some of you are buying some new smart cars by g.m. some of you are buying some new smart cars by chrysler. better gas mileage. got a new attitude. we gave the american innovative

genius the opportunity to survive. we allowed inventiveness to thrive. we built on henry ford's genius and we let it spread around. and as well as we develop jobs for moneys that the taxpayers invested and put the right kind of restraint for you to be reinvested, the debt ceiling means that it allows us, the government, to create jobs for you. you churn the economy and invest back. we then provide the protection for you through jobs or maybe unemployment insurance or maybe social security or maybe medicare or maybe when you're at your lowest amp, when you have loved lost ones in a natural disaster that you cannot comprehend, it is the

cause of the federal government to be able to pay the bills, to be able to come to a place where there's no fire station, no houses of worship, no hospital, no schools, no homes. for us to come and to be of help. i don't know how we can advocate our responsibility. i don't know how we can frivolously play with raising the debt ceiling. i don't know how republicans can put on the floor of the house an amendment or a bill under suspension which requires 2/3 votes to make a joke of helping the people in joplin, in alabama, up and down the mississippi, and whatever other disaster may come, how do you make a joke with that? how in how in he setches in the face of frustration of those who have

suffered, i have no experienced a tornado, but i have experienced and walked the streets during hurricanes. i have seen in my own town the pain. i have come up to doors and knocked on persons' doors where someone is laid dying because they have just gone through a process where all the lights are out and they are on oxygen. i have seen seniors in homes that cannot be repaired. i have seen people lose items that could never be replaced. and so that is what your federal government does. do you mean to tell me we would make a mockery of raising the debt ceiling so that america can simply pay her bills? there is a value to reducing the deficit. and might i just say something with all good intentions.

it is always the person who has money in their pocket, who got a wallet full of credit cards they can pay for that can smile when you are talking about social security and medicare and has an uncaring spirit, because it doesn't matter to them. it is the philosophy that has not made this country great. the philosophy of i've got mine, you get yours. young people, i have gotten my college education. i don't care whether we go to college or not. i don't even care if you get a job. i've got mine. that's not what this nation is all about. i will not tell the people of missouri, alabama, and places around, i'm ok in houston. my house is still functioning. the hurricane season hasn't hit me yet. so i'm not going to worry about your tragedy.

is that america? is that how we built the greatness of this country? did we ignore our returning troops coming home from world war ii, or did we say to them we are giving you the g.i. bill? the democrats gave the second g.i. bill, president truman gave the first. we gave president obama the greatest g.i. bill in the history of america except the one passed by president truman. we said that we care. we built on the values of a country that always rises to the occasion and because of that those people who desire goodness and greatness they look to the united states of america. i am glad regardless of whatever faith we believe in, whatever our background is, or whoever's our neighbor, that we are a country that cares and i will tell you just if you follow what

your grandmother says, being a good samaritan will always come back to you. being kind to someone will always come back to you. therefore, i believe that it is imperative that we lift the debt ceiling for america to pay her bills. i am tired of smashing the middle class. i'm tired of leaving them on their own. i'm tired of them watching jobs go overseas when we have such a brilliant population of innovative, creative people, loving people. . we overcame some of the hills and valleys in america. we went through the civil rights movement. and the era where those who were of a different color suffering

the indignity of segregation. america rose to the occasion. it is not perfect but we recognize the value and equality of all. you are not relegated to the back of the bus. you are not dismissed from hotels and restaurants. you are opened and allowed to travel on america's transportation modes. you even can be accepted into colleges on your own merit. not on quotas. and yes, if you apply for a job, the laws at least protect you that no matter what your background, that you are given an equal opportunity. america has traversed some of those difficult valleys. we respect women and a woman's equality. we are able to say that women

can be pilots and presidents and senators and doctors and heads of organizations and engineers and train conductors and anything a little girl can admire and aspire to be. that's the kind of america that is understanding of the crisis that these people face. and i'm sorry that the debate on the debt ceiling has been characterized as democratic and republican and these are the deficit cutters and these are the wild-eyed spending spreers going into the shopping malls of america and grabbing things off shelves. it's important to note that one of the greatest presidents that we have admired, my little girl used to call him grand pop, rond reagan asked the congress to lift the debt ceiling in 1983. not because he was a spendthrift but because he understood the responsibilities of paying america's bills. and my friends i remind you, can we not pay america's bills?

i want to discuss how we do that. how we list the condition of americans. we do it like we have done it before. we make it in america. now i like one part of it that says we make it in america. everybody needs to have a chance to make it in america. the young people that are graduating in 2011 should have the right to make it in america. by the way, might i just say, congratulations to all of the graduates across america from the preschooler that's going to kindergarten to the elementary child that puts on the robe and is inspired, to the middle school, and to the high school graduates of whom i will go home to this weekend and greet any number of high school graduates

in my constituency who are making that first leap of faith to the college graduates who are feeling so empowered to graduate in such a great nation. to those who get a graduate degrees, lawyers, doctors, businesspersons, our physicists and chemists and biologists. the geniuses that will go into the laboratories of america. congratulations to all of you. that is why i believe it is important to make it in america. the democrats have launched a major initiative. i wish we could get our friends to join us. in a real jobs bill of which the president of the united states has committed to introducing a real jobs bill to make it in america. many of us in our hearings will ask the witnesses that represent the united states government, we want you to buy america and make it in america. and i'm not an isolationist.

i believe america's been enormously generous in buying goods from other countries. proud of them. proud of them. we are glad to help developing nations. we are glad to support microcredit and the overseas private investment corporation that allows investment overseas, but we don't want our jobs. we don't want our jobs to be taken overseas. i don't want to see teenagers with double-digit unemployment. particularly in the african-american community. i don't want rural communities to suffer because of a lack of unemployment. i dread this coming summer when there is no money for summer jobs for young people who are trying to save for going into school in the fall, sometimes the only resources a family has may be the summer job of a teenager. but we have always encouraged teenagers to learn how to work in the decorum of the workplace. just look what we are doing now. for that very reason can i give a challenge to this nation.

can i give a challenge to the businesses, can i give a challenge to corporate america, bring some young people, maybe unpaid, to be able to be interns. city governments, maybe unpaid, bring some young people into your offices. teach them something else, but hanging out on the streets. let them see an adult role model working. but we might not have to have that kind of plea if we could make it in america again. we are going to be honoring in the 18th congressional district in texas and all around america, we are going to be honoring the individuals who have manufacturing businesses. i'd ask you, colleagues, to go and shake the hand of a manufacturer. who is making something, who is struggling to keep the doors opened, who is making a widget or gadget. that's what we are talking about. solar panels, wouldn't it be a

shock if we went across america and begin to make our own solar panels. our windmills, of course, that create wind energy. fortunately i would hate to tell you that that equipment, that kind of technology we get from overseas. if i wasn't on the floor of the house i would hold my head down. when has america needed to depend on someone else, something that was their idea or that they could make better? again as i said i don't mind being part of the world family where we share and we buy items and we help develop economies, but not to the point where all our jobs, like i said, are taking wings and flying away. what kind of america is that for your young people that are graduating in 2011? i want us to focus on building buses, building submarines, and

major aircraft carriers, building bridges, freeways, improving dams. building the rail or the train for high speed rail which i am an avid supporter of and it requires an investment in this country to be able to be fiscally conservative as well as to ensure that we use our energy resources right. to have an energy policy as well that speaks about all of the energy resources to do them effectively as the president has articulated and to make sure that if we are using fossil fuels whether it's oil or goes gas we are doing it here in the united states and that we are, in fact, doing it safely and securely. that we appreciate when and where we make the equipment or the kind of technology right here in the united states, solar that we make all our panels. natural gas, that we do it safely and securely. and that we create jobs that way.

that we break down the cost of energy, that we stop calling upon the american people to take $5 out of their pocket and put a few ounces, if you will, of gas in their car. that we begin to recognize the pain of america. and the way that we recognize the pain of america is that we begin to go aggressively toward the american people with solutions. and the demagoguery of raising the debt ceiling and i'm not going to vote on it unless you burden it down with draconian cuts that will end medicare as we know it on all seniors, eliminate social security, destroy medicaid and throw it to the wind so that disabled children suffering from autism or those who have other diseases cannot be taken care of. that's not the america that has made us so great. it is one that pulls up our

pants and put on our shoes, pulls up our skirts and get empowered by the joy of work and helping others. when we did that, we were able to invest in this nation. i will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys medicare as we know it. and i will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys social security or medicaid or violates the premises that this country owes a debt of gratitude to veterans and returning soldiers. and that's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the american people a bill of goods. a bill of goods that the philosophy that is anti-to president reagan who asked for the increase in the debt ceiling himself, that we cannot count and speak at the same time.

i believe america is greater than that. we can bring down the deficit, the debt with a very meticulous plan over a period of time. the same way you save for college or plan to bring down your debt or stop using credit cards, we can do that. but at the same time we can pay america's bills and we cannot leave one american alongside the road languishing and reaching out for help and we say there's no room at the inn. where is the america that is a good samaritan? where is america that sent young men to war, world war ii, and if you talk to any of that generation, they say i didn't know all the facts, but i was glad to be part of what america was standing for. helping those who are languishing alongside of the road. .

we've had many conflicts and some i've agreed and not agreed with. the premise is we have we had an agreement on the side of the american people. i am now calling in a clarion cry for americans to help america. i am calling on this congress for this congress to help america. i am calling on the president as a friend of the american people to help america. and to do that, whatever is heard that will now come behind me and disjiangled chords will sound attractive and it will be about who will burden our grandchildren and the long-term debt but it will not be infused with values by many of our faiths, those of us of the

christian faith and many other faiths have an element of the document under wish they worship that talks about the good samaritan and charity and love. and albeit that you are asking why on the floor of the house it is because those infusions were part of the design of this nation when we organized around the concept of forming a more perfect union and when the declaration of independence said that we seek to pursue happiness. we hold these truths self-evident that all of us are created equal. we don't abandon that just because it happens to be june 3, 2011. we are able to keep those values and those values have

kept this country on a straight and productive path. all the noise that comes sometimes in a confused sound to the ears of the american people if as members of congress we can declare our commitment to helping the american people and keeping the values of the american people in place and that of our faiths, that is to help, to love and to present charity to those who are in need, there is no limit to the greatness of america. and there is no limit to the restoration of making it in america both in terms of our success and survival and then in terms of making things that we need and putting america back to work. madam speaker, i am grateful for being yielded this time by the speaker of the house, and i am grateful for the opportunity to live in a nation where disagreement does not result in

this century and even in the past century of taking up arms against each other. i am grateful that maybe in the debate that we have on the floor of the house at some point my colleagues can hear not disjangled sounds of discord and dislike but they can actually hear the cords of reason, my friends, that to pay for our bills as you pay for yours we must do the right thing, raise the debt ceiling, and to be able to preserve medicare as we know it and not destroy it as the being destroyed by the budget proposals of the republican party. it is necessary, if you will, to be able to come together and to listen into one voice finally that we act to help america. with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from texas yields back her time. for what purpose does -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is rked for 60 minutes as -- is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. burgess: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the congressional health caucus wants to talk a little bit about the future of the government's role in health care in this country, and i recognize for those of you studying your constitution at this very moment you don't find the government's role for controlling health care in this country, but we will do our best to help you understand why we are where we are and perhaps where we are going with some of the federal programs that are run by the federal government. again, the congressional health caucus, the website, healthcaucus.org, this hour, i'm grateful to the leadership of the republican party for the use of this hour. myself and my co-chair, dr. --

mr. j.t. thompson from pennsylvania will be leading the discussion. we've had a lot of talk over the past four weeks about the future of medicare in this country. certainly if you look at the three plans that are on the table right now, and i understand you may be scratching your head saying, wait a minute, i thought there was only one plan out there, i thought there was only the republican plan. but the medicare trustees i shall report -- report issued some two, three weeks ago and articulated how the medicare trust fund would be exhausted in the year 2023 or 2024. this is a significant fact that right now this congress and the white house is trying to ignore. but it can't be ignored and that's why the responsible republican budget passed in april would deal with this

fact. the trustees report articulated the trust fund is exhausted by 2023 or 2024. that means then all funds to pay for part a, part b and part d of medicare, hospitalizations, physician payments and pharmaceutical payment would all come from the federal treasury. the trust fund would be depleted at that point. what are the implications for that? the implications are as we sit here even now and talk about things like expansion of the debt limit, the implications are that all of the funding for medicare for the hospitalizations, for the physicians part, for the pharmaceutical part, all of the funding would come strictly out of the general revenues, out of the -- the part that's paid by the taxpayers every year. are there things that could be done under the trustees report to prevent this from happening? there are, and one of those things would be to raise the

tax on the -- the payroll tax that is paid by individuals for their medicare. all of us pay a 1.2% tax. the employer matches a similar amount so that amount is paid out of our paychecks every two weeks or every month, however we're paid. it could raise the tax to sustain medicare in the future. i must remind the speak that this law, which was signed by the president in march of 2010, the patient protection affordable care act, already had a medicare tax increase included therein. so there's a .9% medicare payroll tax that is included in the patient protection and affordable care act which leaves us very little room to maneuver unless the payroll tax goes up even further. many people argue that the payroll taxes are some of the least progressive and most regressive taxes in this country because they are

administered across the board without regard to income. so this is a potential problem. one that perhaps could have been solved with a payroll tax increase but that payroll tax increase has occurred. you say, there's a payroll tax increase in the medicare trust fund, that's good news because that means medicare goes on farther. unfortunately under this law the money is taxed on the payroll, collected by the medicare trust fund, makes a very short stop in the medicare trust fund and then goes to fund a very different program, a program that in fact does not exist today but will start in 2014, a program of subsidies for entitlements for people to purchase private insurance in nonmedicare years in what are called the state exchanges. so the money goes from the medicare trust fund to fund a new entitlement. that money will have to be paid back to the medicare trust fund. make no mistake about it, the money we're borrowing from ourselves but not there to save

medicare today. when the administration argues, hey, within the affordable care act we've done things to sustain medicare not future. nothing can be further -- into the future. nothing can be further from the truth. they've poured gas on the fire that's existed. and then benefits can be cut in the future. i say if nothing else happens and we get to the point where the trust fund is exhausted, those benefits will be enacted by some congress in the future because the intergenerational strife that will occur because of the inability to keep pace with the problems that were made by generations before with generations yet to come. the unfunded liabilities in the medicare trust fund will outstrip every other activity of the federal government. that is, no money left for defense, no money left for transportation, no money left for education. all of it will go into medicare in some way, shape or form. well, did the president have a

plan for sustained medicare? yeah. you heard about the tax that he already enacted in the patient protection affordable health act. what other things has the president put on the table as a plan for saving medicare? now, bear in mind there is no presidential plan to save medicare. we have encouraged the white house to provide us with such a framework. we would like to see such a framework. they could send it over to a congressional budget office and have it scored, have it compared to republican proposals that are out there. but this has yet -- this act has not been honored. as a consequence, what we're left with are the bits and pieces that the white house has articulated, here is our plan for medicare. one of the big plans they have for medicare is cob tained within the pages of the compilation of the patient protection and affordable care act on page 423 where it talks

about a new board that is created that's going to administer medicare costs. this is the independent payment advisory board. who will these individuals be? there will be 15 in number. they will be nominated by the president. they will be confirmed by the president there to be made up of academics, people who worked in government, people who have expertise in health finance and economics, in actuarial science, health facility management, health plans and integrated delivery systems and way at the bottom of the page you might get a doctor or nurse on that board as well. 15 people that are paid by the government to do nothing but identify cuts in the medicare system. well, perhaps that's a good thing. perhaps that's something that's necessary. look, i'm a member of the united states congress. the speaker is a member of the united states congress. we are the people's house. it is our job to deal with the people's money, to tax the

people, to spend the money and be good stewards of the people's money. it's not our job to hand off that obligation to the executive branch or worse yet to a board that is appointed by the executive branch and is accountable to no one. it is not our job to do that. it is our job to have the oversight over the federal agencies and boards so we can ensure that things are done properly with the people's money. in this case the independent payment advisory board will be just that. it will be absolutely independent of the legislative branch once the action is taken by the independent payment advisory board, it becomes very, very difficult for congress to impact the decisions that are thereby made. now, true enough, their job is to deliver back to the house and the senate their recommendations for cuts in the medicare system and it's very detailed here on these pages as to how much they are required to cut. it's very detailed as to the procedure for bringing those cuts to the house and the

senate and which committees they go to for evaluation. but here's the deal. at the end of the day, congress either votes up or down on this menu of cuts that's provided by the independent payment advisory board. yes, we can vote no. yes, we can turn down the recommendation of the independent payment advisory board. what happens then? according to statute we're not finished. congress then is required to produce the same level of cuts that was recommended by the board. maybe taking us some different places but still the same amount of money has to come out of the same federal program. that is the medicare program. well, what if congress gets together and says we don't like what the board has delivered to us, we're going to produce a different menu of cuts? but then wouldn't you know it, congress can't agree what those cuts will be. i know, i know, madam speaker, find it hard to believe where congress wouldn't agree with

itself very much but it could happen at some point in the future that things would be so contentious in washington and so contentious in the house and the senate that we couldn't agree with each other on what bills cut would be. what happens then? what happens then is the cuts recommended by the independent payment advisory board are in fact delivered to the secretary of health and human services and that person, whoever he or she may be, the following april, will enact those cuts. there is no getting away once those cuts are recommended and once guenther dictated in statute, once they're recommended they are going to be enacted. there is almost no way around that. we have a similar situation today with a different formula that deals with only part b, that's only the part that reimburses physicians, it's called the sustainable growth rate formula. it is a very complex set of figures and numbers that deals with some federal targets, it deals with some subversion

factors, it deals with update factors, but suffice it to say, it requires a reduction in reimbursement for patients' visits to doctors and it does this every year. now, congress historically has come in at the last minute and rolled those cuts back and said that we won't enact those cuts. the problem is with the formula as written every year that we come in and say, ok, doctors and patients, we're not going to actually cut reimbursement rates this year, every time we do that that aggregate number that should have been cut, it is added to the sum that ultimately must be cut. so right now we are existing on a gift, if you will, done in the lame duck session of the last congress, where the cuts in medicare are given a 13-month reprieve, but if congress doesn't act by december or january -- december of this year or january of 2012, a almost 30%

cut goes to physicians who practice on the part b part of medicare. i know you can say, well, doctors probably make too much money anyway and the government needs to save money so what could that hurt? well, that hurts that doctors are having a tough enough time keeping up with their expenses, when we cut them 30%, the company that delivers the electricity that keep the lights on in their practice doesn't say, gee we know you're having a tough time and the government cut your reimbursement so we're going to give you a break on your electricity bill. that does not happen. the good people in the municipality that allow the doctor to practice don't come up and say, doctor, we know this is tough on you, we're going to give you a 30% reduction in your school taxes this year for your business property. that does not happen. those fixed overhead expenses occur and the federal reimbursement rate for medicare and the part b program reduces year over year. that is why you have doctors

leaving the medicare program and as a consequence that is why you have people who are entering the medicare program, turning 65 or older, who move to a new location, call up a doctor's office and say, i need to be seen for my whatever and the answer is, we are not taking new medicare patients. that unfortunately reality is hitting -- that unfortunate reality is hitting people today. the payment advisory board is theoretical, that's in the future. the g.s.r. is the here and now that congress is deal withing with even this year. i'm very fortunate to have been joined by my counterpart on the congressional health care caucus again, mr. thompson from pennsylvania, thank you for being with us this afternoon. let me yield to you such time as you may consume. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend, dr. burgess from texas, for yielding and also for being able to work with him in terms of our congressional health care caucus. we cover the health care industry from both important

aspects. you as a physician and all of your experience in the medical, specifically the medical field, my background came up through therapy and most of my almost 30 years of working in nonprofit community health care was really on the administration side. some as a therapist but largely in administering programs and hospitals, in comprehensive rehab centers, nursing homes, i was a licenser of a nursing home administrator and frankly dealt very, very closely with medicare. out of necessity because medicare is one of the -- it's at least 60% in terms of market share, in terms of payment. and so medicare is very important. i have to say to my good friend, i was pretty naive when i came to washington in january, 2009, that's when i was sworn in, i won an election in 2008. i thought everybody knew that the impending crisis had -- one of those had to do with the

insolvency, the event bankruptcy of the medicare program. only to get here and find out that there were -- that was none not on the agenda under the previous leadership and frankly it has emerged. because it is a truth. when you look at the situation today with the medicare system, medicare is in jeopardy and what we're trying to do, what the republicans are trying to do is to save medicare. the thing that would hurt medicare the most is to do nothing, to further kick that can down the road. we have -- just by questions, i stopped by earlier, i was off the hill, stopped by and picked up a prescription earlier today. you know, the only prescription to save medicare is a republican prescription. i have to tell you on the democratic side they're just willing to pull the plug and let it die. if you don't make changes to the medicare program, that's exactly what happens. and that's not political

rhetoric, that's coming from some pretty credible sources that you talked about. last friday the medicare trust ees report confirms that the medicare program is already contributing to the federal deficit and will continue to do so for the next decade. so since 2008 the program has run a cash flow deficit, a fact that's been largely ignored in washington and still there are those of our colleagues who choose to pretend it's not true but it is the truth. in fact, 2011 that exceeds $32 billion. that's a program that is, if we don't make necessary reforms to save it, it will go bankrupt. and what an injustice that will be. for all of us, all the people across this nation who have paid into that program, who are looking forward to hitting those retirement years, to be able to access and utilize that benefit, if we allow it to go insolvent, if we don't reform it, we don't save it.

it goes bankrupt. the only thing keeping the program afloat financially really is the self-treasury bonds in the medicare trust bonds. when those bonds are cashed, that increases the deficit. so what we're saying, you know, the president -- i don't know if his plan, i guess is to let it go insolvent because i read today he's restated he doesn't want to do anything about medicare. leave medicare alone which essentially says, let's leave it go bankrupt, let's let it go away. and in fact the measures and did you a great job of i think talking about one in particular, the independent advisory board, which essentially takes the decision making out of the hands of those of white house are accountable, those of us who are elected every two years, to make decisions about medicare and those decisions will not be about what benefits to expand in this financial situation, this will be about where to make cuts, where to ration care.

some already does that. under part b, if you're in a nursing home and you need to receive rehabilitation therapy, the federal government has already put a cap on how much therapy that you're able to receive and it has nothing to do with what your need is, it has to do with how much dollars have been spent. if americans think that the federal government would not do rationing, it already happens. it already happens. you talked about the board, you know, we've got -- what the president has done, i think his plan, which really i think is going to pull the plug on medicare, a program that's already financially insolvent and challenged, he cut $575 billion from the medicare program to fund his health care initiative, he cuts over $200 billion for medicare advantage and forces over seven million seniors out of their current medicare plan. the projection from the c.m.s. act wear, this is the person who -- actuary, this is the person

who is responsible for really crunchingment ins for the medicare agency, richard forester in april 22, 2010, he said, 15% of hospitals, nursing homes and home health will close because medicare pays less under obamacare. we have an opportunity here to do the right thing and to reform medicare and to save medicare. you know, the president has an obligation to do. that under the medicare trust fund, there actually is what a lot of folks don't know is there is a requirement, a statutory requirement that whatever point the medicare trust fund is using more than -- reaches a 45% level for more than two years, the president is required, is required to put forth a plan essentially to save medicare. to be able to address medicare. we are way past that trigger and president obama knows that, i assume he knows that, it's part

hiffs job. so he has chosen to ignore his responsibilities, to really put a plan forward. when we were at the white house earlier this week, the president said that he was not going to put a plan forward for dealing with medicare. he was going to just not take the leadership on that issue. we have. and i'm very pleased with the plan that we have put forward. it has to do with putting premium supports, it directs our plan would direct medicare to go out and bid out for many different venders, health care plans that seniors could then shop through. medicare sets the standards in these companies that would put these products forward, have to meet medicare requirements, it's not a new concept, it's what we do under medicare part d today. and medicare part d is probably one of the few government programs that have actually come in underbudget. most government programs come in way over budget. i think we know that. but medicare part d has come under budget and and it's going

to put an emphasis on prevention and wellness. and that's the most cost effective type of health care that's out there. we're keeping people well. that's what we need to do. obviously. that's the best thing for the individual, for folks to remain healthy as possible, so we're not talking about voucher programs, we're not talking about privatizing medicare, those are concepts that we're just not -- that's just not true when people claim that we are. we're talking about providing people choice of quality products that meet a minimum standard, that the medicare agency will assure that's there because they're the ones who are going to bid this out and manage the process and then we're going to provide premium supports that allow our seniors and we're talking about just impacting people that are younger than 55 years of age. if you're 55 years and older, there won't be any change. i bumped into a few that want to know why they can't have this opportunity because they think it sounds like a really good thing. but the fact is what we're doing is holding those harmless, age

55 and older, and so i think it's very important that we have this debate, but it's a debate that brings forward all the facts and the realities of what we're talking about and what we're talking about is doing something that will i think improve medicare, just like medicare part c, which is medicare advantage, has been shown that seniors on that has allowed individuals to be -- because of the emphasis on prevention and wellness, they've been hospitalized fewer days and for smaller length of stays, which has saved money in the long run. it's kept people healthier. so we're talking really a positive investment in the health care of our seniors, saving the country money and frankly saving medicare and so i appreciate the opportunity to join my good friend from texas and this is a conversation i think that's going to be very important. we continue this conversation all throughout the rest of the spring and well into the summer.

i yield back. mr. burgess: well said because that is exactly the point of this exercise this afternoon. these aren't difficult concepts and they are very easy to demagogue, they're very easy to demagogue against the republican plan, the president himself may choose to do this, certainly the democratic leadership in this house has chosen to do this. they do that in the absence of putting forward their own plan, but let's be realistic. we talked about things like premium support. now in the 1990's, i'm just a regular guy, practicing ob-gyn in lieu which isville, texas. -- lewisville, texas. president clinton recognizes that medicare is going to be headed for difficulty in a few years and he convenes a big commission, the bipartisan medicare commission that's going to save medicare. senator frist who at the time was relatively new in the senate, he was a heart surgeon from tennessee, was thought to be at that time, he was recognized as one of the thought leaders in forward thinking in

health care reform. so senator frist was on that commission. senator brow from louisiana, a well respected conservative democrat was on the commission, bill thomas who subsequently became chairman of the ways and means here in the house was on that commission. the brow-frist commission, people are google that and look that up on the internet, but they came up with a series of recommendations to the clinton administration on how to sustain medicare into the future. the brow-frist commission had a number of recommendations but the centerpiece of what they recommended to president clinton was this concept of premium support. it was not necessarily new with them, it had previously been described by the brookings institute, certainly not a conservative thinktank, probably regarded more as a mott rad to less than center thinktank but they had come up with the concept of premium support. people like to try to describe what the republican budget produced as a voucher system.

that is in fact incorrect. i will tell you, i was a little bit surprised that members of the administration, when the republican conference was called down to the white house earlier this week and had a discussion with the administration, i was a little surprised that they required some instruction as to what premium support actually was and what the history of premium support actually represented. but it was in fact developed by a moderate thinktank, it was embraced by a centrist to center-left democratic administration in the clinton administration and the clinton administration essentially took this idea, evaluated it and put it on the shelf and said, we're not going to consider it because there were too many special interest groups on the left who did not like the concept of medicare moving away from central federal control. but what premium support represents is, in this case, a purchaser, or in this case the united states government, going out and negotiating with insurers saying we have a bank

of patients who are going to require care, i.e. our seniors on medicare, and this is the type of claims history that they've had for the last several years and we would like to see if you would be interested in developing a proposal for what you can do for our patients. so it's essentially a request for proposals that goes out from the federal government, yes, to private insurance companies, some for profit, some not for profit. the only requirement is that they be able to show that they can take care of the patients that the government need or the government needs help with as seniors and produce a product that is going to be cost effective and is going to deliver quality care to the patients. a voucher system, i was startled that members of the administration required instruction in this regard, a voucher system would be given a check to someone and saying, go out and negotiate and cut your best deal with a company. a premium support system is the government going out,

negotiating with insurance companies, saying come to us with your best proposals for taking care of medicare patients. some people say, that's preposterous, that would never work. you were not here when medicare part d here, i was, part d was built on that premise. it was let's see if there's an interest out there in providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors since we were criticized that no one in their right mind would provide such a -- such insurance for seniors, we had a fall back position. it was a medicare prescription exclusively, not one run through an intermediary. the fear was there would be parts of the country that no one would show up to make a proposal. what we got was indeed a surprised, after being criticized that no one would show up to participate, we were

criticized then on the other side because people said there are too many plans out there from which seniors have to choose. a senior goes to medicare.gov and in the state of texas there were 45 plans available at different subscribing at different rates, pick the one that most consistently met your needs for prescription drug program but it really was indeed a pleasant surprise. because of the competition between so many plan the prices were vastly under what had been projected by both the congressional budget office and the office of management of the budget and one of those few programs that came on time and under budget with a -- where the satisfaction rate is in excess of 94%. very few seniors today would be willing to give up part d coverage under medicare prescription drug program. it has had some bumps and bruises along the way but the a lot has been learned in the process and now the concept of premium support is much more developed in 2011 than it was in 2003 when the medicare

modernization act passed. premium support, i was surprised members required remedial learning on this but at the end of the morning, i hope they understood better that it is not necessary to demagogue against the republican plan because after all, it is a reasonable plan that's been tested with medicare part d satisfaction rates high, cost of delivering the care under what was projected and why in the world wouldn't we draw on that worthwhile experience. now what do you do about someone who is between the ages of 55 and the end of their life? what do you do with someone who has reached that point where they have basically made all of their assumptions and plans based around what the government promised they were going to do? for that individual, age 55 or older, nothing changes. i happen to fall into that age group. i would actually, as thompson alluded to, i would happily opt into the group that's going to

have choices because i would rather have choices than a proscribed benefit but nevertheless, those individuals who are 55 and over will see no change, the thought being they have already struck chaured -- structured their lives and retirement based on the fact that this promise had been made. for individual whors younger than that, where there is still time to make some adjustments in your post work year, your retirement year, there will be a different program. now, you say is that fair for people who are 54 years of age and younger, is that fair to do this? well, i think both mr. thompson and i have articulated what fair will look like if you don't do something, what fair will look like if you don't do something is either vastly restricted benefits, as has been recommended by the medicare trustees, vastly restricted benefits as dictated by the independent payment advisory board or perhaps no medicare program at all.

because after all, the makeup of the voting public in 10 to 15 years time is going to be different than what it is today. and the makeup of the voting population in 10 to 15 years' time may feel significantly different about paying 60%, 65%, 70%, 75% of their paycheck in order to continue benefits promised by a congress 60 years before. this type of intergenerational anxiety is just around the corner and if we don't deal with it head on if we don't take it as a serious responsibility, then it indeed can set the stage for some significant strife down the road between today's children and tomorrow's grandparents. and that is why it is so important that we address this situation today. i have said what i intended to say today. let me yield back to you for

either additional comments or closing thoughts and we'll wind down this hour a little early. mr. thompson: i appreciate that. thanks for hosting this hour. what we can't do on this debate, whether we're talking about addressing the deficit or talking about saving medicare, and frankly both of those issues are intertwined, we've got to save the country and we have to save the medicare program. what we cannot do is allow the politics of 2012 to infect the problem solving of critical problems in 2011. and that's what we've seen so far. on the other side of the aisle, on something that has just been -- where the facts are evident and clear where this country is facing a critical deficit that can bankrupt it, where the numbers for medicare are such that its insolvency is impending and bankruptcy occurs and it goes away, these are

critical problems. they shouldn't be demagogued as we bring solutions to the floor to debate. that's what has been happening. so there's no way we should allow the politics of 2012 to affect the critical problem solving of 2011. about the balanced budget act in 1997, i had the privilege as a health care professional to serve on a professional panel for medicare. the health care finance administration, today the centers for medicare and medicaid services. based on that experience, this is necessary. this is a necessary debate, this is necessary to save medicare. and it's an opportunity for us. we've had previous reforms, the most recent one i saw was under president bush where he created the waiver program. that was a reform to an entitlement program that actually increased quality of life and decreased costs. many people who were institutionalized, living in nursing homes, frankly were -- and i like nursing homes, i

think they're quality they can be quality facilities, i was an administrator at one time, but people should have choice of where they live if they are living with a significant disability. it was president bush's waiver program, reform, actually, that allowed that to occur. so reform is -- i think it can be a word used to scare people but we need to talk about the specifics of why it's necessary and the opportunities that we can do to, i think to increase quality of care to decrease cost, to increase access, even, all those, and certainly choice. patients always -- health care consumers are making decisions and those are four principles i think we share as a caucus and whenever we -- whatever we do in health care, rooking -- looking at medicare reform, looking at our plan, which i think is the only plan, the only viable plan, i look

forward to continuing this debate, we need a good, transparent debate but it needs to be a debate not based on demagoguery, it needs to be based on the facts. so i yield back and thank my colleague for hosting this special order time. mr. burgess: we look forward to having similar discussions in the future because it's important to not just have the debate with both sides of the chamber, but it's important to have the discussion and the conversation with the american people. i would remind people that the republican budget that was passed in april was an aspirational document, it wasn't terribly long you look at something that becomes an actual law and it can get fairly long and intricate. but the budget was an aspirational document that sets the goals in 10 years' time we want to see medicare on a sustainable path, we want to preserve, protect, and defend d -- defend it for the future.

this aspirational document sets the pathway for achieving that goal. all the work that will be done to actually develop the legislative product will be done in the committees that mr. thompson and i are on in the house and other members of the other body are on in the senate. the work will be done in those committees and there will be ample opportunity for people to comment, for people to contact their legislators, there will be periods of open comment at the federal agencies as those laws are written. they won't be written in the next couple of months, they will be written over the next several years. so i think the point i would end with is we are entering a phase of a long conversation with the american people ability what the future of this program, which arguably has been a good program in the past, but left untouched is headed for some significant problems in the future. so what is the forward looking path for our medicare system and for our seniors of both today and tomorrow and it will

be a long conversation but we're both up to it and we can talk for a long time without pausing and i look forward to working with you many afternoons on this very subject. with that, madam speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands

>> like house coverage when they return, here on c-span. earlier today on c-span2 we brought you live cartridge on -- live coverage on the annual conference of the faith and freedom coalition. live under way at 7:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their

information about what our government and our country does. several times today this has been referred to as an historic occasion. whether or not it will be an historic occasion, is i think the subject for the judgment of history. next this week marks 25 years of televised coverage of the u.s. senate. and that first day in 1986, c- span2 was carried in a little more than 6.5 million homes. today it is available in 89 million homes. watch that first day on line at the c-span video library. the peabody award winning c-span video library, it is washington your way. the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking

sites. find our content any time the ec spends video library, and we take c-span on the road with our it robust, local content video. it is washington your way, the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. yesterday, the pentagon's chief policy official for the middle east said al qaeda is gaining territory in yemen due to recent political unrest in that country. the assistant secretary of defense spoke during a forum at the center for new american security. >> i am karen elliot howe. i am on the board here and spent

many years in washington as a "plomatic correspondent for the wall street journal" and then became a bureaucrat in charge of bottom-line responsibility, and retired as publisher of "the journal" and am now writing a book. i am looking forward to hearing the panel. i will make some brief introductions of the speakers and the topic and then lay a foundation for some discussion and then go out to you because i know from sitting in audiences that you come here wanting to ask questions of people like these, and there is nothing worse than a moderator who does not know when to share and shut up. i am going to start just mentioning the internet freedom study that nate mentioned,

because it does give a really good discussion of the issue of technology and the double-edged sword that is. hopefully, we will hear some more about that, because one of the authors is on our panel. we have some genuine experts here this morning in different areas. on my immediate right is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the middle east, and prior to that was a fellow here at the center, and a teacher at georgetown, although he tells me now he has only one job at pentagon. he cannot have a side job the way he did here. it is inexpert on counter- terrorism, counterinsurgency the he is an expert on counter-

terrorism, the causes of violent civil and ethnic conflict. he is well positioned to talk about the topic here of the middle east. on my left is an expert on islamic political parties and democratic reform in the middle east, which he was studying long before the arab spring. on my far right is richard fontaine, who is an author of the internet freedom study and has experience on the hill as the foreign policy advisor% to mccain. he was the associate director for near eastern affairs and

worked on south asia. on my far left [unintelligible] he has served in the u.s. army in both afghanistan and iraq and was an adviser to general stanley mcchrystal. he is the author of "this man's army, a soldier's story from the front lines on the war on terror." he has a degree in middle eastern studies on the american university in beirut. he was in egypt after the revolution. i think all of us have watched the administration be somewhat conflicted about how to respond

to events in the middle east this spring. whether to support stability of autocratic regimes and where to support democracy for which america stands. i suspect some of us have also been conflicted precisely because not all middle eastern regimes, while authoritarian, are the same. there are gradations of strategic importance of these countries to the u.s. where do we draw which lines, is one of the things i hope we can draw people out on. syria in my view is an equally

nasty regime but is far more in them a goal of u.s. interest. why do we fight libya and largely ignored syria? egypt had a relatively progressive rumor and relatively important to us, but after some hesitation, we helped the egyptians heave-ho mubarak. syria has a smothering regime and is by far the most important country in the region to the u.s., and our president could not even bring himself to utter its name in his latest middle east speech, which i found quite interesting. "the wall street journal," for which i no longer have any

responsibility, has long advocated that the strategy in the middle east ought to be protected and support our friends regime change with that in our enemies. i will not go on about it -- pakistan in many ways is more important to us than anyone in the middle east except saudi arabia. i am going to start with colin, to be to lay out what are the principles that the administration uses. we once had sharon visit us and he said our principles and policies ought to be so clear, in essence it would be like a woman with the recipe box in

iran. i would like to know what the principles are on the recipe cards in the pentagon marks. >> it sounds like the joint staff wanted to have the plan on the shelf and the president ask for it. in the pentagon, my office covers the region from egypt up through israel and for iraq, iran, down for the gulf and arabian peninsula to yemen. i don't deal with yemen, afghanistan, and pakistan. i just have those ec countries in between. it has been said about revolution that prospectively they look impossible and retrospectively they looked inedible. that has never been more true than in the middle east.

one they now will say is that i don't think the internet caused any of this. what the internet id was facilitate collective action in this part of the world. in terms of legitimacy deficits, that have been around for decades. secretary gates is still my boss for another 30 days or so. they are unleashing a political earthquake and tsunami of change across the region. we don't know where it is going to go. we all need to be humble about that. as we go into this, we are not going into it as high in the sky idealists. there are opportunities in the region that will emerge from the

awakening of the arab spring or whatever you want to call it. it relates to help of this will affect our corporation and relations with so many countries in this part of the world. if you look at countries that are democratizing and governments that are being more responsive to political will, which is true of new democracies and those that have survived this political unrest that have to be more responsive to the street. there is a possibility it will complicate our cooperation with some countries. new actors will bring new uncertainties in our relationship. at the same time, i think that one of the opportunities is the ability to build a more lasting and enduring relationship with countries that are more closely

aligned with our values. relationships are not determined by a set of key ties with a handful of leaders across the region. in the near term it could create some tension in some places but ultimately it is in the u.s. interest. unrest in some countries like we are seeing today in yemen will provide opportunities for violent extremist to potentially expand their areas of operation. we are seeing al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. there is more to rein in yemen than at the beginning of the unrest. the have fundamentally destroyed al qaeda's narrative. thomas friedman calls it the delicious irony of the freedom that osama bin laden spent his last days watching what the

egyptian people could never accomplished, and that was toppled the mubarak government. a path of peaceful unrest and political change with universal values that are a thousand years old and prescribe to buy most -- prescribed to by most people on earth is a rebuke to al qaeda and a sign that they are very much on the decline. we have been clear from the outset that iran did not cause any of this. secretary gates said that no country in history of the broker has had the ability to create this much change in a short amount of time -- in the history of the world has had the ability to create this much change in a short amount of time. it to try to say that it was all inspired by iran's islamic revolution.

these folks are not on the streets pushing for an iranian style theocracy. i think ultimately what other may be some opportunities for iran to exploited in the short term, in the long term it will not work to their advantage. the countries in this part of the world, iran was ability to exploit grievances on the arab street will be marginalized overtime. you'll see the stand-up of rival democratic states like egypt and perhaps a new iraq which will be a counterweight against iranian influence. lastly there is the fundamental hypocrisy of claiming to stand up for regents brown the area with brutal repression which has denied the freedoms we saw

expressed in tahrir square or indonesia. square. the next is the middle east peace process this created a lot of anxiety and egypt is to the degree that there is arab-israeli peace but egypt and jordan and in both places from an israeli perspective those are shifted because the unrest. on the other hand there's opportunity for that peace and the peace between people as opposed to between leaders and the palestinian question whether obama encouraged the israelis to get out in front of the populace we've in the region this bring about israel but as elections start to take place israel will be an issue and the palestinians against israel the interest. it's a very complex mosaic. we basically packet in two ways. to articulate a common set of

principles and identify three. we oppose violence in all circumstances government should not hurry to get the people. protests, protesters also have an obligation to not engage in violence. we support universal rights in every country without exception. as the president said in 2009 and again ten days ago those rights include freedom of speech, the freedom to peacefully protest and the right to have access to information. third, we support political and economic responsive people in the region and it's our belief the status quo is gone. the status quo is not going to return. the status quo won't be sustainable and ultimately stable and that there's a real opportunity now to realign our country and values. that's the general, that's the top line message and we have been consistent about that. so we've had to adapt our policy and the specifics of the policy for the conditions of every

country. it's not hypocrisy, it's not choosing values over interest. it's navigating a pragmatic way forward in each of the state's cognizant of the fact of different interests and different influences in different places. so in countries like you know, egypt and tunisia would have been forward leaning in supporting democracy and standing up and helping democracy in iraq and look forward to a long-term partnership with them and if we are encouraging -- >> do you think iraq had any impact on the causes that made this happen? do you think iraq had any impact? >> i don't know because the distance was so great and the top thing with saddam hussein in 2003 got rid of a dictator. the bad news was it unleashed instabilities that left thousands of iraqi dead and send

a message to the region that the democratization of the company by the religious uncertainty so we get to sort out of the iraq effect but without real litigating i would say moving forward the believe you do need to consolidate democracy in iraq and you need to consult with the long-term strategic partnership between the united states and iraq for all of the reasons true six months ago and in the red spring. let me say just a few words and then i will shut up and let others talk about other spaces. in him and i think we are contacting al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and that country not becoming a completely full state or descending into the civil war. we have been very forward leaning and encouraging the president to live up to his commitment to step aside and working with the state's to try to make that happen. so it's been reassuring to the

partners of the reasons we cooperate it's the underpinning of our strategic partnership, called for terrorism counter proliferation and positions and maritime security, all of these areas, all these arguments that cooperation six months ago but it's also articulate it to the partners in the gulf we had a common interest in stability and that stability in the new environment requires progress towards political and economic reform. and that has been our message in all the countries in the gulf and particularly that's been our message with bader main which is not going to move back in a positive direction i hope that is probably going to have to navigate. and in the last thing on syria, the president again, and it's clear to note that when he said that the president can either lead or leave. if he doesn't lead the transition it doesn't look all that likely at the moment. you know, yesterday he announced

that it's showing. if he doesn't if he doesn't allow when mr. gaidar is to come in in the general reform, then the alternative is clear. more pressure, more isolation and more demand. so, we have a general set of principles and then we try to navigate our way through each of the specific circumstances and i would be happy to talk about any of these to you would like. thanks. >> can i just ask you quickly blood do you think of someone that's been studying this region and looking at the democratic impact, what do you think caused this tectonic shifting of the plates? what are the causes? is there any common cause?

>> the arab spring was surprising but it actually wasn't. we've been meeting condoleezza and 04 and 05 to say the status quo was unattainable and would keep on repeating that and that is the line we heard from the middle east analysts for quite some time now and i think we just have to acknowledge the basic facts that hypocrisy doesn't last forever and i think that there was a sense in washington that these regimes were doable. they were going to last somehow but they were somehow immune from the historical suite that we saw in other regions of the world. so, i mean, the factors were there. but i think had to happen was the spark and two nisha provided the initial spark that all the other basic factors were there. high levels of unemployment and underemployment, the fact that people were living under these dictatorship's early 50 years, this has been going on for such a long time now. and also, this is important because it is not just not a domestic policy, it lives were

also angry that there are autocratic leaders were too progress or pro-israel and warrant reflecting their own preferences on the foreign policy so you put them all together and was just a matter of time. >> the technology and the social media play? >> first others made this point, too, it's not that the new technologies or the internet caused a revolution, the people cause a revolution and the causes of why they wanted to have a revolution are some of the ones that was just talked about. they do matter with the matter in a way that's been different and what we've seen in the past with other communications and technologies and these matters in a couple of different ways of

the thing striking about a series of political revolution has been the speed with which that has happened in one country, and people throughout the middle east have been able to see images and get information about what is happening in countries where previously there would have been much more limited. so there has been an educational informational process and a politicizing affect. there's also been a growing sentiment among people in countries that their view which we have been an opposition was not the only one. they had a shared sense of opposition. the technology has been used quite obviously to organize protests on facebook and things like that and then there's been an interaction with satellite tv so in a place like yemen where few people have the internet but a lot of people watch satellite tv the images would have been around youtube video so there's been a kind of interaction

there. but the other thing that i would point out is it describes the kind of space protesters side of the equation and there's the regime side of the equation, too push as been carefully trying to use the tools to do just the opposite which is to crack down on protesters. so, the facebook organized protest indonesia and the tunisian government cracked the entire country in egypt infamously the regime pulled the plug on the internet but after that it had been using it to monitor people and in syria the concession of the protesters had been banned the are allowed to go back on line and there's a lot of suspicion that it could have been the best thing the regime could have invited because a lot of people who don't know how to use facebook in a secure fashion would go on line and the regime would have access to their friends and everything they are talking about and make it that much easier to crack down. so it's a contested state but those are things are some of the

initial ways we can see how this had an overall effect on the political change. >> i hope you are right but it's a quite optimistic scenario that subsequently will be better off in the middle east because we will have more solid friendship and not just what some dictator for a king. i would like to ask you to look ahead because it depends on how to turn this out other -- clearly you are right that delegitimized, but if people don't wind up with more dignity, which is the key word i think,

and a better economic situation that i think it will be something else. >> let me just start off by may be reinforcing some of the things that my fellow panelists talked about. i.e. agreed with colin visa de al qaeda. i think al qaeda has been weakened, and the arab spurring really was a lot of ways the demise of al qaeda and richard talks about something that's also important which is to talk about technology in the middle east which richard it does so in a new nuanced way in his report. that is part and parcel of the broad sphere that's been developing over the past ten years and marked lynch was with us for breakfast and is now on his way to egypt but nobody has been better at describing the kind of new public sphere than mark lynch himself, and you look

at the ways in which not just satellite television but newspapers and later the internet has created a unified public sphere within the arabic speaking world. that is very much trippi and on the other hand the individual condition in each country differs greatly. lisa anderson as the president of the american university and had a good article on the latest foreign affairs talking about the differences between the challenges that a state like libya with face and steve like egypt, talking about each of and to asia we spend just finally a lot of time worrying about the direction with which egypt will go but it has a state institution. libya doesn't even have that. not only did they inherited policies to the ottilie incipit my wife is anatolian but they did a horrible job of building the institutions during the colonial era in libya and then they followed by mo marra

gaddafi who has had no interest in building the state institutions when we look at the individual challenges that a lot of the states are going to fees, egypt, which should worry tremendously because it has people pivotal in the art of speaking world and that is an easy case talking about the security sector reform and political institutions and making political institutions responsive to the public. that's all good and that's all happy but in places like libya, the situation could be much more by year going forward, so i actually worry more about liddy of than the administration does. >> on a more pessimistic note -- >> even the phrase here in spring is a misnomer because that suggests flowers blossoming career momentum and that is certainly not what we are seeing right now. on to be worried 11th when mubarak steps down its one of the most beautiful things i've

seen and remarkable to be there at that time. and on the fortunately though some of that euphoria was premature, and just a couple of months we've seen what happened. there was the hope leaders would use less force but in fact they are using more force and we are talking about will see a real lead the transition we are beyond that, syria has more than a thousand of its own citizens. that is just a level that is remarkable, and you add that to libya, bahrain which is a close ally of ours and they are waging a war against their own people. so all of this suggests the are of spurring is going in a very troubling direction. and i think this is where the u.s. becomes more important because it has been spread throughout the region. we are talking about two countries with it's been a revolution out of 20. that is a pretty low percentage. so i think going forward with of the obama administration's rhetoric is greeted the u.s. is on the side of the freedom and

democracy but in practice that is not what is happening. and if you look at the perspective from the arab world, they see them very differently than we see it come and the see us as being on the wrong side of history, and we have been behind even from my standpoint we have been behind the curve in nearly every single their country. we only support revolutions after the happen, not before they happen and that is the true test. even to nisha, obama came out with great words supporting the aspirations only after the president had already left the country and was on a plane. that's not going to cut it. >> i want to mention the unmentionable country of saudi arabia because there are no institutions. >> the president made a very good speech when he talked about women's rights and freedom of worship and he didn't mention the word saudi arabia anywhere

in that speech when of course the right of minorities saudi arabia is a country that doesn't much larger and the one thing about that kind going to pick a fight a little bit we have been hypocritical especially with respect to bahrain and it's not just us because we talk devotee democratizing influence of al jazeera and its arabic at least to the great job in egypt largely pretty quiet, their coverage was that on bahrain and we were pretty supportive of the democracy movement in egypt but when saudi arabia and indeed in other countries along with other nations we were pretty quiet about that. i think that there are some good reasons for doing so in terms of the u.s. interest perhaps, but it's to talk about the iranian intervention in bahrain when you have the nation's occupying a militarily. >> to draw the protected did

these things happen in the nasty authoritarian dictatorship but we are different. >> it includes morocco and jordan. >> we should take questions from some of those kings and queens here. >> i see people standing but -- >> all right then. i'm going to ask. >> i couldn't do it. i'm going to add on to this twitter question which is how can the social net productivity provide post resolution guidance to emerging democracies i'd like to broaden that to what can the

u.s. do to shape the advance you say that it's already going in the wrong direction. how much authority and influence do we have come and i realize that it varies from country to country. and should we use it or if we account to encourage bahrain are we only going to screw it up? >> as they were saying before, the middle east has been and will continue to be attacked in complacent because we see that we support democracy and human rights everywhere. we applied inconsistently with leaders we say must go on the basis of the principal and others we say nothing about it. that is true and it's also going to be a fact of life. no superpower is going to apply that a foreign policy that is rooted only in the democracy and the human rights and its region

but by the security and economic interest. so the question is how you balance the security and economic interest with promotion of democracy and the opportunity i think in the arabs during summer, fall whatever it may be we can align them better than in the past and it won't be true for a free country because there's no change happening but in a country like egypt for a sample, in 2003 and in 2004 when the bush administration was passing decompressing the case for the reform that he egyptians would come and say you can either have the corps participate in the middle east peace process and work on the counterterrorism cooperation or you can give a hard time of reform. pick which one you want. if there is a space government there that we are actively supporting through the kind of things that some of which the administration talked about that if there is a trade framework that would move in that hopefully the europeans could

become part of that could have some economic incentives for these kind of countries, and it will be moving in the same directional support for the dog sees that are also partners on these interests and that would be the best possible outcome. >> you are the islamist party expert here. how much should one warn about the -- >> i think a lot of the coverage there was a sense that these revolutions that's not true. the only secular so far is people were not explicitly raising islamist slogans. the muslim brotherhood ordered its brothers in the square to not say anything remotely islamist. don't do any of that because they knew that that might provoke the arrest and also the regime. and now that they are looking to or three months into the post revolutionary era the muslim brotherhood is the single most powerful tool in egypt and i was

just there two weeks ago and met with the top three leaders of the brotherhood a political party. they are pretty confident about the strength. that said, they are not trying to win a majority because they are worried that might worry people too much but they could win a plurality of the vote. i think we ought not to be as worried about the brotherhood organization that has been long been part of the political process but overseeing that it's the islamist parties emerging really almost out of nowhere and you have a group that's trying to form political parties so they are going to enter the electoral ring so you add the muslim brotherhood through the parties and there's also one or two progress of islamist parties. altogether they could work 50% of the seats in parliament. again, i think a lot of the alarm that we have in washington

is on found it because again, we are not as radical as we sometimes think they are and in some ways they reflect the sentiment. this is a conservative religious society and we have seen a number of polls the last couple of months where anywhere between 60 to 90% of the egyptians believed that the islamic law should be the name to the command source of legislation were the only source of legislation. and no constituency for what we call the secularism in a place like egypt today, and even the word secular in arabic no one would actually call themselves that publicly. so i think we have to be realistic about where egypt is going, but i think that's why we have to engage in groups like the muslim brotherhood. internal dialogue with them. we've been afraid to even talk to them so now they might become the most powerful force in the

parliament and we don't know who to talk to. that's troubling. >> the gentleman in the back over here. they are sending you a microphone. can you state your name and affiliation? >> peter willson. it seems to me the revolution of egypt that we are going to inevitably now go through a very tough time through egypt and its evolution and israel. there's reports in today's financial times the national gas pipeline has been repaired and in the internal political reason isn't the resumption of the gas to israel. and what is the subject of the

peace process to exist becomes an important feature of the political dialogue and debate inside egypt. >> we are doing a number of things to try to maintain a good relationship with the political spectrum in egypt and also to facilitate the transition. the package that president obama announced within the international community to bring more to various frankly the next parliamentary election will say a monumental challenge and very difficult to live up to the expectations and aspirations of the people during the fall of mubarak. we are also working on our democracy assistance program to try to help as well as allies

believe to mobilize and there will be a gradual process. the last thing we are trying to do is maintain a good relationship with the military which i think as a possibility of being a guardian for the democracy. what is interesting about the way that another three plays in the transition is it's played a buffer between the regime and the people and that a lot of credibility with of the egyptian people and i think that the egyptian military contained a positive role moving forward and this gets to the question about israel look egypt and israel have had a war on peace. there's not a lot of love between the egyptian military and our military for example. the the egyptian military does have a similar interest in maintaining peace with israel but no interest in having age -- and the reason every year to maintain a positive relationship with israel in security

assistance we provide which is conditioned upon maintaining the peace agreement with israel so the military in egypt is counter to some of these tendencies but certainly there's with the reconciliation agreement between hamas but if you are going to see any egyptian power that has to be more responsive to the fact that the difficulties in the relationship with israel, and i've seen the reconciliation in iraq as throwing a bone to the street on the issues with israel won all the fundamental strategic question peace agreement is maintained at the highest level of government and in our interactions with the officials when i sat with them on a more than one occasion to include the revolution i think that the elite remain very important in the nejib can remain committed to the peace agreement.

>> he's talking a lot of sense to but on the one hand it looks like institutions and politicians that are responsive to the people. and it's not just the extremist groups that are going to be using the conflict between israel and the palestinians to the favor. the people are have a genuine support for the palestinian people and palestinian state would that's not anything that is to end up by al qaeda forces, that is genuine from the people. the institution that is the egyptian military fundamentally is conservative and then any big swings of the egyptians ought to be going forward. >> the gentleman here in the front. >> my name is chris with mission personnel. i wonder if we can just through the digital age perspective talk

about what these things mean from a u.s. public diplomacy strategic perspective. should we only be relying on the viral spread of things for the digital age to help us spread and facility changes or do we need to return to a to misinformation agency? how we better strategically and tactically use what we've got in front of us? and a comment from anyone. >> i think part of this goes back to the big intent is to try to change the narrative and the president has done that for the speech and the narrative of al qaeda and the one hand space aspirations it should be on the side of people serving their legitimate space aspirations as much as we can throw out that in

the sense that the state department now for example has a party line spokesman and twitter feed and so forth that's a good but the board of governors is to be more. on the internet freedom site, the u.s. government now is spending $30 million a year not on the public diplomacy but on making the different platforms available and training people so they can communicate among themselves and on percolating and about a day after the polls and having seen over the past few years various government agencies for i'm not sure the track record is all that great without ascending, would be a little hesitant to the bureaucratically reform so when it comes to all forms of social media and speeches and everything that we can push out as much as we can and part of this also is the revolving

ability to do this to people and the countries themselves and ambassadors and embassy staff and the state department has a sort of opposite model in the military in that sense where the state department and everything has to be clear before you can see it in cairo and running around all over the place of the state department is going to have to be more nimble and move more towards the military model on that one. >> the exchange of information available on the internet with young people even in saudi arabia. >> [inaudible] on down no matter what happened that the hierarchy was there.

>> it would get somewhat more information their leaders anymore. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> this is becoming problematic because the brotherhood is exploring the possibility of forming the coalition in the group's not because they have an ideological and muslim brothers haven't got along in egypt but

the brotherhood is a very pragmatic organization so it is a big set of improvements and allies with far-right groups that's what it will do. so why it's important to look at how we can we find ways to keep the brotherhood in a more central right area of the political spectrum from a u.s. perspective we don't have a lot of power over that, but i do think that starting real substantive dialogue with muslim brotherhood leaders as soon as possible is crucial. we have to reach of to them and have a better understanding of where they are coming from, where their interests are, and that is going to hold down the road. and it will also get a degree of leverage with them. they do care about what the u.s. thinks about them. they are sensitive to international opinions. and that's why, you know, they have been careful about how to proceed with terms of winning a majority and use it today. so i think there is some

opportunity there. if we are talking about the brotherhood versus al qaeda, thankfully that is still very much there. al qaeda and the brotherhood pretty much hate each other and i don't see that changing any time soon. so that's something good and that is why in some respects the brother who serves as a counterweight to some of the more extremist groups because if someone joins the muslim brotherhood we might not like their ideology, but at least we are not going to be using violence pitted >> can i ask a follow-up question within the brotherhood it's not a unitary actor and we saw during the demonstrations emerge during the under activists and between the kind. can you talk about how we can engage different parts of the brotherhood were different factions within especially that may be more amenable to the outreach? >> of the brotherhood is a -- >> [inaudible] >> there's a kind of 50% islamic across the spectrum government

where the fight among each other were bring the country in the way we don't want it to go. >> the brotherhood is a massive organization and it's in some ways just a giant bureaucracy of the sort. so there are different tendencies within the movement. and there is a division now between some of the muslim brotherhood youth who are cooperating very closely with their liberal and secular counterparts. and the had a different kind of outlook, much more open, very much part of the social media atmosphere and there has been some talk of inspection from the brotherhood and some of these different view of how the organization should go. these are the kind of people that are ready to talk to americans and u.s. officials and, you know, again, we should be doing that and hearing what they have to say and see not how we support what they are doing but the u.n. general how we find

a way to support the egypt because right now used were excellent at bringing down the regime and much less effective in the post revolutionary era where they were relatively weak force and having trouble organizing. so, on your question about the muslim brotherhood and islamists and whether they will take the foreign policy and all that i think what i would like to see is a kind of broad national government where you have the muslim brotherhood, and the rest is kind of coming together and finding ways to govern together. the last thing -- i don't think what egypt needs right now is a fully islamist government in to talk to the muslim brotherhood leaders they are aware that egypt isn't ready for that, the u.s. is not ready for that and that is going to cause a lot of alarm on the international

stage, so i think that there is a realization on the brotherhood that's not the way to go. >> we have a question from the overflow room since they can't be here to raise their hand eyeglass on their behalf. can the panel discuss the response to the nato campaign, and also the issue of the other reform movement in the arab world seeking military assistance. >> policy covert plans. [laughter] in a written format. >> [inaudible] >> i won't speak to the libya question and my portfolio i think that we have seen outreach

by a lot of groups across the region but above one point that i would make is the overwhelming majority of the group across the region that are doing so peacefully, and they are not looking to us for a lot of materialistic things they're looking for political support, for symbolic support. we are doing our best to do that diplomatically. i don't know how the arab spurring or higher awakening or whatever you want to call within the fall or the winter whatever way it is going to go, but the violence in the equation here has largely been initiated by the regime in this equation. it's one of the reasons why i think the violence in the movement could be in trouble because they have been violently resisting and now we see opportunity to work and that could be a pretty close model.

>> the levels in libya had been on the ground and spent a lot of time with them but you read a lot of their accounts and agreed journalists on the ground like a partner in crime over there the revolution that is taking place that's expected from him on state actor on the battlefield trying to learn of the biggest decisions in the equipment or fancy weaponry but really in terms of learning how to fight cohesively on the battlefield we are starting to see an evolution and the perspective of somebody that studies these things but i hesitate to speak extensively on that subject without being able to see more on the ground. >> i have a question about whether or not, you're talking a

lot about of power and if we see a sort of palestinian nonviolent i'm wondering what is your advice to the panel, the u.s. has to respond because there's one thing to respond between verses syria verses libya but if there's a conflict it response on some of violence, you know, then that could be very interesting for the region. [inaudible] to >> the u.s. is going to be in a very difficult position come autumn and the palestinians will take their case to the u.n. to seek recognition of the state's, and the rest of the world is going to be supporting them in

that to different degrees and presumably we will as said in a recent speech. and this fits into a broad question of if there is a full movement that emerges in the palestinian territory how are we going to react and he made a very interesting point about that. that is going to be one of any good will that we are going to bring down because of our response to the arab spring will lose 100 per cent of that if we are seeing with israel against the non-violent palestinian movement. i don't know how you square that circle and i guess i would be interested to hear what colin thinks of this about -- [laughter] >> speaking for the administration -- [laughter] >> does anybody have a third real. [laughter] i can grab onto. [inaudible]

[laughter] >> i think of what we see is in the fall [inaudible] i'm not sure i think the clock, there's the near-term clock and the long term glock and that you are going to see the palestinian drive in the general assembly in the fall. i think the president has made clear if we want that outcome we see that as something to emerge from the negotiation of the party not being imposed by the international community through the u.n.. i don't know, you know, there's obviously the debate about whether the president leaning forward on seating some of the principles we all knew created in washington last week that there's a lot of in those statements, too of the two states would be 67.

and that would look weak interpreting that but i don't know whether we will have enough on the international community which there should be that the negotiated outcome imposed or how the palestinians would but i think it will create a challenge for the government. the longer-term challenge is the demographic one. [inaudible] and asked to vote. the response to that is no, and we are going to drift towards a state viewed as undemocratic by a number of states around the world in which case the zionist dream of a space and jewish israel goes away so that is a demographic reality that's

coming down. it's for that reason the president did lean forward and it took both sides. there are those outcomes are suboptimal and i will return to the point at the outset which is one of the good things of the eda spring is it's not about us and it's not about israel but it will become, at least in part about israel wants elections start happening in these places and it will be partly about israel as to divert attention to not pose that so long and syria and i think israel has an interest in getting out ahead of that. >> can my push you on this comment for a second because this is from the senior obama officials it's not about them it's about us your support and

many of these regimes with billions of dollars for five decades how was it not about us? it's almost the since we are pretending to be this innocent bystander watching this and supporting that for the arab people when we were never mutual in this and in fact fighting with the wrong side and it's been a perspective of our people. >> who continue to -- >> pure is bahrain on the table right now wanting to negotiate with their own people. where is it going to be actively quietly doing something, overtly doing something or -- >> i've got it. [laughter] >> it's not about us.

the people protesting in the streets aren't protesting about the relationship between the regime and the united states. and a way in which for example of violence in iraq was in response to our presence in iraq as well as secretary of divisions and other things but we were at the center of unrest and violence and the aftermath of saddam hussein. we were not in the center, not at the center in any of these other places that the revolution or the unrest, the turmoil is driven by a popular response to a set of economic and political structural challenges and inequalities and justice perceived that has been around for decades and have now it's been a nonlinear shift in the environment. people said my gosh it could happen. and so, that we are relevant to the equation.

our relationship to the regimes are relevant. it's not the driving factor which is why i think he tried to position ourselves and make clear the set of principles and with the narrative is and that is why the president spoke so eloquently about that ten days ago in bahrain. on march 12, today's before they crossed into bahrain and that was interpreted that we were giving a green light for the saudi as to the contrary. we were there to push the national dialogue and did the government to move forward to the right and in fact leader the investor and merest affairs isn't going to get the national dialogue started and a violent set of protests providing the excuse or the rationale for the

forces to coming in. during that initial period don't confuse being publicly quiet with behind the scenes of the government and the partners for the legitimate concerns about security and legitimate concerns about law and order and about iran in the circumstances here, but there is ultimately no security solution. there's only the political and you have to get back to that. with a listing of the state emergency yesterday, and some of the other steps talked about, but may be getting back on the right track. but i will say the president has pretty strong words about bahrain and the speech. not that we've been quiet. it's just bezoar talks and questions and executing them in a pragmatic way. >> on that note, we are going to have to close unfortunately,

pragmatically. so please come join me and thinking the panel. [applause] and i believe all of you have earned a copy is their right, mike? >> "road to the white house" to the white house coverage coming up this evening. tim pawlenty, mitt romney, and ron paul will speak. our coverage gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on "book tv" live coverage on politics, the taliban, and the beginning of the 20th century.

also from chicago, "in depth" with a live studio audience. your comments and questions. fine scandal information online at booktv.org. text the word book. this weekend on american history tv, reporting for the "new york times" in the 1960's and 1970's. we will look back 50 years at america's failed attempt to overthrow the castro regime at the bay of pigs. get a complete schedule or have the e-mail to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> the u.s. house took up a pair

of resolutions dealing with u.s. military operations in libya. the first was offered by house speaker john bennett. they called for the president to detail his plans -- house speaker john boehner. they called for the president to detail his plans for the operation in libya. this is the last legislative action of the house for the next 10 days. a return on monday, june 13. this general debate runs about 2 1/2 hours. . ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i rise in strong support of house resolution 292 sponsored by our distinguished speaker. . as the resolution states at the outset, the armed forces of the united states may only be used to defend and advance the national security interests of

the united states. not to enforce, to quote the president, the writ of the international community, end quote. not -- nor because of the united nations -- nor because of the arab league. yet these are what the president has repeatedly pointed to in justifying sending u.s. forces into action in libya. but what he has not done is explain to the american people and to congress how the situation in libya, if allowed to spiral out of control, poses a threat to u.s. national security interests. it is an increasingly important region, mr. speaker, with implications stretching into other areas that are vital to our nation. little if any details have been provided in response to repeated questions regarding u.s. goals,

the scope of the operation, and other issues of direct relevance to our national security. it is an open question as to whether the administration simply won't tell us or whether they just don't know the answers. members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. and i share that frustration. many question the importance of libya to u.s. interests and especially the need for military engagement. many more are outright angry about the disregard with which the president and his administration have treated congress on the libya military engagement. but it is not surprising that there is a desire to simply say enough and to force the president to withdraw precipitously regardless of the consequences. but i believe that we would only make a difficult situation worse

by taking such drastic action. the negative impact would be widespread, mr. speaker. the news that the u.s. house of representatives had mandated a withdrawal of u.s. forces would send a ray of sunshine into the hole into which gaddafi is currently hiding. it would ensure his hold on power. it would be seen not only in libya but throughout the middle east and north africa -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady shall suspend. the house is not in order. out of respect for the gentlelady, please take your sidebar discussions outside the house chamber. the gentlelady may resume. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. it would be seen not only in libya but throughout the middle east and north africa as open season to threaten u.s. interests and destabilize our

allies. pulling out of the nato operation would also undermine our nato partners who after years of producting by -- prodding by us have finally begun to take more responsibility for ensuring security and stability in the region. how could we then argue that they must maintain their commitments to our allied efforts in afghanistan when we have just pulled the rug out from under them in libya? we must not let our frustration with the president's contempt for congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would harm our standing, our credibility, and interest in the region. but clearly we must speak out. this resolution offered by speaker boehner would send an unambiguous warning to the president that he must either change course in his dealings with congress and the american people or have the decisions

regarding u.s. involvement in libya taken out of his hands. it states a fundamental truth that i assume most in this chamber agree with that u.s. forces must only be used to defend and advance the national security interests of the united states. it underscores that the president has not made a compelling case for u.s. military involvement based on u.s. interests. and it prohibits the deployment of u.s. ground forces in libya so that mission creep would not gradually lead us into an ever expanding conflict. it also requires the president to provide to congress the information that we should have had at the outset, including, mr. speaker, what are the political and military objectives of the united states and libya? how do we intend to achieve them? what specific commitments have we made to our nato operations?

and how might these impact our commitment in afghanistan? and what is the anticipated scope, the duration, and the anticipated cost of continued u.s. military involvement in libya? what is the relationship between opposition forces that are grouped under the interim transitional national council, and the muslim brotherhood, the libyan islamic fighting group, al qaeda, hezbollah, and other extremist groups. how well armed are these and other extremist groups? and how extensive are their activities in libya? who controls thousands of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and chemical weapons that gaddafi has acquired? finally, mr. speaker, this resolution bluntly states that the president has neither sought nor received authorization by

the congress for the continued involvement of the united states armed forces in libya. if this clear warning doesn't get the attention at the white house, then more forceful action may be inevitable. the president can choose to act with the support of congress and with the support of the american people, but he will not be allowed to proceed without it. i urge my colleagues to vote for this strong and necessary resolution. with that i am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house of representatives, mr. boehner of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. in march when the president committed our troops to nato's mission in libya, i said that he had a responsibility to the american people to define the mission. to explain what america's role

was in achieving that mission, and lay out how it was to be accomplished. he has not effectively done so. and the american people and the members of this house have questions and concerns that have gone unanswered. the president of the united states is our commander in chief. and i have always believed the combat decisions should be left to the commander in chief and to the generals on the ground. the house also has an obligation to heed the concerns of our constituents and to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. the resolution i have put forward expresses the will of the people in a responsible way that reflects our commitments to our troops and to our allies. let me lay out exactly what this resolution does. first, it establishes that the president has not asked for and

that the congress has not granted authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of our troops in libya. second, it reasserts congress' constitutional role to fund our troops. third, it requires the president to provide within 14 days information on that mission that should have been provided from the start. and lastly, it reaffirms the vote that we took last week that says there should be no troops on the ground in libya. i hope the president will recognize his obligations outlined in this resolution and provide this information to congress and in doing so better communicate to the american people what our mission in libya is and how it will be achieved. the resolution offered by my colleague from ohio, mr. kucinich, conveys the concerns of the american people, but it

also mandates a precipitous withdrawal from our role in supporting our nato allies in libya. in my opinion, that would undermine our troops and our allies which could have serious consequences for our broader national security. in my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far. we may have differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn our backs on our troops and our nato partners who have stuck by us over the last 10 years. in 1991 my first vote as a member of this body, i was to authorize the use of force in the first gulf war. it was a consequential time but i think we did the right thing. today is no different. on behalf of the american people and our country, we have an obligation to support our troops in harm's way and to support our allies.

this resolution puts the president on notice. he has a chance to get this right and if he doesn't, congress will exercise its constitutional authority and we will make it right. so i would urge a yes on the resolution and a no on the kucinich resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. i rise in opposition to this resolution. if the members of the house choose to pass the speaker's one chamber resolution, it should add one finding that we declare ourselves to be one big actually created potted plant. mr. berman: this resolution

casts all kinds of aspersions on the president. it states the president's failed to provide congress with a compelling rational for operations in libya. it implies there has been a withholding of documents and information from this body. could the president provide more information to the congress? of course. but we need to look not just at the president's failure to seek an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its authority in this area. the onus rests with us to exercise the sacred duty of authorizing the use of force. a resolution like this with no operative language, with no invocation of the war powers resolution, and which was presented to members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence for the most part has gone on truly since the

korean war. there are two choices here. if the majority thinks that the president's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were wrong, or that current operations in libya do not have a compelling national security rational, it should support mr. kucinich's approach and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution requiring the removal of u.s. forces. if the majority has concerns with mr. kucinich's approach as many of us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave consequences for u.s. national security, it should simply authorize the use of force in liba incorporating the restrictions on ground forces that this resolution has, that the conyers language on the d.o.d. bill had. i would gladly join the speaker in co-sponsoring such an

authorization of the use -- limited use of force. but pursuing a nonbinding house resolution that takes potshots at the president and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the congress is just an exercise in political gamesmanship. it is a pa can'tic effort to em bears the president without taking any ownership for the policy of the intervention. the majority not the president puts this body in the position of powerlessness through such toothless efforts. we are 60 days into this operation. either we should authorize this action or terminate. not play around with reporting requirements. the resolution is also confusing. it states that the president shall not deploy or maintain the presence of u.s. military units on the ground in libya, but as the majority well knows, u.s. military activities are limited to operations and nothing more. does the language mean the majority is ok with the current

intervention in libya? the majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the white house. that's not the way to legislate. finally, i object to the resolution because it is down right inaccurate. the resolution implies that there is no compelling national security rationale for the operations in libya. but u.s. interests are clear, they have been articulated by the administration and ironically by conservative advocates like bill kristol. we are in libya because we are averting a probable massacre against civilians. we are in libya because our nato partners need our help. refusal to act there would send a message to our nato allies who are putting their forces on the line in afghanistan that we are not a dependable partner. we are in libya because our friends struggling for democracy in the middle east are watching events there. if we fail to act or worse seek withdrawal today, what will you

be saying to the activist in tunisia and egypt whose fragile movements for democracy could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a gaddafi-led government remaining in power. and what message would we be sending to assad and the other dictators and enemies about our staying power? . a gaddafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. we know his willingness to use terror, especially now he has nothing to lose. i cannot think of a more compelling rationale. i object that the humanitarian objectives are incompatible. in libya it is quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very much correspond with u.s. national

interests. the republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both ways. they want to criticize our president for taking the very action that many of them called for three months ago and they want to do so without taking any responsibility. in the process they're offering nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second guessing. president bush once accused the democratic party of becoming the party of cut and run. well, it seems the running shoe is now on the other foot. it is a democratic president that is taking on a brutal tyrant and it is the republican party that refuses to back him. i urge my cretion to -- colleagues to take serious the u.s. involvement in libya and vote no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve? mr. berman: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 292 and h.con.res 51 and with that, madam speaker, i yield two minutes from the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: let me just say that the constitution of the united states and the war powers act prohibit the president were doing what he did. and i'm kind of torn because i stayed up late last night thinking about this whole issue. i believe we shouldn't have gone into libya in the first place and we shouldn't go into syria or another place without authorization of the congress of the united states, and that's the reason why i co-sponsored the kucinich resolution because we have to send a very strong signal we are not going to go to war without the people of this country supporting it. and the president did this unilaterally after talking to the arab league and the u.n.

and others without the consent of the people of this country. that's the first thing. the second thing is the boehner resolution i'm going to support but it doesn't go far enough. as far as it goes it's fine. but it talks only about boots on the ground, and most of the wars in which we've been involved are fought in the air with drones and missiles and airplanes, and we got -- about 2/3 of the missiles and over half of the assaults flown by the air -- the airplanes that are involved in this war, over 2/3 of those are used by the united states. this is an american conflict, and so when we talk about boots on the ground, that's not sufficient. now, i'm going to support it as far as it goes because the speaker's trying to move this in the right direction, but we shouldn't just limit this to boots on the ground. it should involve no military operation whatsoever without the consent of the congress and

the people of this country. and when the speaker says boots on the ground only unless we're going in to save one of our troops that are down in an air fight or shot down when they go in on a bombing run, then that in effect is putting boots on the ground anyhow to get those people out of there. so i'll support the boehner resolution, but i prefer the kucinich resolution because it sends a very strong signal and tells the president in no uncertain terms that you cannot take us to war without the consent of the people of this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. and i initially just yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing and what we're not doing. no boots on the ground did not come because of this resolution we're considering now. this was the decision of the

president, the commander in chief, at the time. but the figures given by my friend from indiana don't reflect the reality of our participation. what are we doing now? well, we're not in the lead. the united states is contributing significantly to the operation. fighter aircraft for the suppression of the enemy air defense, i.s.r. aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and predator armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. 24%, not 2/3 of the total aircraft, 27% of the total airplanes, 70% of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. now, there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement implicates the war powers resolution. this is within the meaning of

that bill, and once again only kucinich has before us a proposal that seeks to deal with the requirements of the war powers resolution. i just think we should get the record straight about what our involvement is. it's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it is significant. it's within my opinion it's within the terms of the war powers resolution. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to my friend from california, the gentlelady from, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. let me thank our ranking member for yielding. and let me just say first of all, i rise in opposition to the boehner resolution, but this debate is long overdue. on march 30, myself, along with congresswoman woolsey, grijalva, honda and waters, sent a letter to speaker boehner and majority leader

cantor that they hold a vote to continue the use of military force in libya. let me ask for unanimous consent, please, to insert the letter into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. : thank you, madam speaker. i'd like -- ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to read parts of the letter. this was dated march 30, mind you -- we the undersigned members rank to request the united states house of representatives immediately take steps to hold a debate and floor vote on the president's authority to continue the use of military force in libya. we fight the constitution, article 1, section 8. we go on to say that the united states has now been engaged militarily in libya since march 19, 2001. while we firmly believe that a robust debate and an up or down vote should have occurred in advance to the military action in libya, it is without

question that such measures are still urgently required. beyond congressional authorities in these matters, these deliberations are essential to ensuring that we as a country fully debate and understand the strategic goals, costs and long-term consequences of military action in libya. that's one paragraph of this sentence. now, madam speaker, over 60 days since our letter, the speaker has suddenly hastily scheduled a resolution in a resolution that does nothing but politicize in an extremely serious and what should be a nonpartisan issue. the war powers act forbids armed forces from engaging in military action -- may i have an additional minute? mr. berman: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: it fore gids armed forces from engaging in foreign

lands more than 60 days without congressional authorization or without military force or without a declaration of war. we've been actively fighting for 77 days. this is not just about our mission in libya. and let me just say, i think our president, who has done a commendable job in handling the very complex range of foreign policy issues, but this is about any president, any administration. it's not about that. it's about standing up for congressional power granted in the constitution. and as our ranking member said, the kucinich amendment is the amendment that addresses this head on in a very honest and direct way. so we should reject this politically motivated resolution. it's a resolution that has just come up. we ask again the speaker and majority leader on march 30 to conduct a debate and an up or down vote. and we conclude in our letter that it's our position that the president has a constitutional obligation to seek specific

statutory authority for offensive military action as he should have done with regard to u.s. military engagement in libya. thank you, again, and thank you for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, a valued member of our foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you. i thank my colleague from florida. i rise respectfully in support of house resolution 292, which reasserts the congressional war making authority of section 8, article 1 of the constitution. and i respectfully disagree with our -- my ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee for whom i have enormous respect. i don't think this resolution takes gratuitous potshots at the president of the united states. i think it is a thoughtful expo significance of the problems in front of us. it buys the president time to comply without the disruption

that the kucinich resolution would cause, not only -- not only in libya but the ramifications for nato relationships and in the arab democratic spring. the resolution prohibits the -- declares congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of u.s. armed forces. it requires the administration to transmit to the house of representatives any records regarding congressional communication in operation odyssey dawn in libya within 14 days of passage. madam speaker, since before the passage of the war powers resolution in 1973, the executive branch, regardless of president or leader, has argued there are inherent constitutional powers contained in the constitutional reference to the president as commander in chief. if one argues that section 2, article 2 of the constitution grants the president inherent powers as commander in chief, then logically one ought to acknowledge congress also has inherent powers as the only

entity expressly granted the power to declare war in that document. according to the house report regarding war powers resolution, consultation means that the decision is pending on a problem and that members of congress are being asked by the president for their advice and opinions and in appropriate circumstances their approval of the action contemplated. this report language makes the intention of the war powers resolution clear. consultation ought to be active, not merely informative. in the war powers resolution, the term hostilities was used deliberately instead of armed conflict precisely because the former phrase -- broader nature. the war powers resolution is clear. congress must have a role with regard to the use and deployment of u.s. forces. the extent of that role has been the subject of debate as old as the united states itself. to go any further, a strict constructionist would argue that the war powers resolution itself limits congressional authority. the act of even acknowledging the need for a statutory framework to codify congress'

powers in the constitution in fact delutz those powers and may have the unintended effect of enhancing the executive's powers directly at the expense of congress. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, house resolution 292, to assert congressional authority and to buy the president time with which to comply. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i'd like to respond to my friend's arguments. i agree with every word he said except that congress -- this is a manifestation of the congress exercising its authority. this is an advocation of congress exercising its authority because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be authorizing if we think they're appropriate. the gentleman from ohio thinks this is appropriate.

we are not going to go to the executive branch and ask for them to request of us authorization. we have the institutional power to decide what to do and this resolution fails to take that option. so i think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the constitution and the war powers resolution, and with that i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i've been here a long time and i've never come to this floor for the purpose of imposing an innocuous resolution. in fact, i voted for every piece of innocuous legislation and post office renaming in the last

15 years as far as i can remember. and this is innocuous legislation. first it starts with a sense of congress about our opinion as to what should or shouldn't be done. it has a sentence that purports to prevent the president from putting ground forces in libya, but in fact just states that that's our policy, it's certainly not designed to prohibit the president from doing so, it just says it's our opinion that he shouldn't. and, oh, by the way, in the defense authorization bill we have real legislation that prohibits putting ground forces in libya. it then goes on to ask that a number of questions be answered. and there are some who think, oh, that's important. those who think that the questions propounded in this resolution are actually going to get us useful information are insulting the faculty of the law

schools of america. because both the pentagon and the state department have lawyers capable of writing long and meaningless answers to every question we propound. and as for getting documents, some of the documents demanded we already have and the rest those same lawyers will be writing long documents about executive privilege. so we have here a document that at most is just the questions for the record that the chairwoman of our committee allows me to add at the end of so many hearings. hardly earth shaking. certainly innocuous. but, ok, so it's innocuous or is it? this is innocuous legislation that plays a particular role in avoiding the constitutional role of this congress. it allows us to side step the war powers act, it gives cover to those who don't want to

authorize or refuse to authorize . it says, we're an advisory body, we have some questions so that we can give good advice, we give you -- we'll give the president some advice, it is part of the trend of an aggrandizing executive and a derelict congress, a congress that almost is complicit in this slow process by which we are not legislators, we are not deciders, we inquire and we advise. the constitution is clear but the war powers act is more clear. the president must ask for congressional authorization and we have to act. we have to review the proposals and i believe our ranking member would have one, that would say, ok, what are we going to authorize? under what conditions?

what demands will we make of our allies in libya? to perhaps turn over to us or at least disassociate themselves from the al qaeda operatives in their midst, are we going to limit the duration, are we going to limit the scope, are we going to oppose limits on the total cost? with this resolution we can avoid all those questions. we can avoid demanding a withdrawal, we can avoid limiting the authorization and we can allow the president to continue to write the blank check that apparently he believes he has and we can do it all while disassociating ourselves with anything unpopular that ever happens over the skies of libya. now is not the time for us to shirk our responsibilities. our responsibility is to act as a policymaking body. i ask the gentleman for one more minute. mr. berman: madam speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4

1/2 minutes remaining. mr. berman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. sherman: thank you. now is the time for us to play the role that the war powers act provides. because this is not an immediate short-term emergency situation, it has gone on for much longer than 60 days. it should not go further. now, 208 members of this congress voted for my amendment yesterday to say that we should not expend funds in violation of the war powers act. and they were willing to vote for it even though i put it on a bill to which it didn't really pertain. thank you for those votes. but now, please come back here and say it's time to enforce the war powers act, it's time not to dodge the war powers act, it's time for our policy over the skies in libya to be determined by the president in congress, not the president advised by congress.

vote no on this resolution, don't use it as a side step, go back to your constituents and say you are for voting either for a withdrawal from libya or for full authorization or for a limited authorization. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to my friend and colleague from florida, mr. young, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on defense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida voiced for four minutes. mr. young: madam speaker, i thank my friend and the chairman for yielding me this time because i think it is important to stress the importance of the boehner resolution. it deals specifically, especially on page 4 and page 7 of the resolution, specifically with the constitution. and the constitutional responsibility of the administration and the congress to work together, especially in matters of national security.

the chairman of the defense appropriations committee, as my colleague has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding for any military operation that is approved by the commander in chief and approved by the congress. on the matter of libya, on april 1 i sent to the president a letter trying to exercise my responsibility as chairman, a letter expressing support for our troops but asking certain questions. how long do you think this will last? how much do you think it will cost? how much of a future commitment have we made? what will be the source of the funding for this operation? and here more than two months later, still this official request from the appropriations committee remains unanswered by the administration and that's

just not right. the constitution is pretty clear , article 1, section 9 of the constitution in part says, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. and a regular statement and a current on the receipt and expenditures of all public money should be published from time to time. well, so far on the libya issue this article 1, section has been totally ignored -- section 9 has been totally ignored. it's just not right. it's a violation and in my opinion contra vents the constitution itself. when i asked for that information, the only thing i've been able to get on the cost of this libyan operation is in bits and pieces we have added and $750 million already spent on

the libyan mission. they've not confirmed that but we have put together in our own edition bits and pieces on that. but again we have received no request whatsoever. where is the money to pay for the libyan operation coming from? what account is it coming from? is it coming out of personnel costs, soldiers' pay? is it coming out of medical care, is it coming out of training for our troops? what accounts are being used? we have a right and an obligation under the constitution to know the answer to that. and speaker boehner's resolution calls very sharp attention to that issue. so i think it's important that we pass -- that the house passes the boehner resolution and let the president know that we are not going to allow him to ignore

the constitution any further when it comes to war powers when it comes to spending for the welfare of our troops, when it comes to appropriating money for the defense of our nation and for the defense of our allies. so, madam speaker, i do ask that the letter that i sent to president, which has remained unanswered for more than two months, that it be included at this point in the record so that my colleagues can see that it was a very, very legitimate and very conciliatory request as basically an offer to support our troops and any legitimate activity. so we're still waiting, we're standing by hoping that we do hear from the president very soon and maybe shortly after we pass the boehner resolution. and i thank the chairlady for the time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california.

mr. berman: yes, madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i thank mr. berman. i ask unanimous consent in defense of mr. burton's description of u.s. involvement already in libya to put into the record an article from the guardian u.k. dated may 22 which talks about the united states having 50% of the ships, 50% of the planes, 66% of the personnel, 93% of the cruise missiles. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: and i just want to say briefly, madam speaker, that this article that was written about 10 days ago, if it's true it points out that we've

undertaken a huge mission through the united states in the name of nato now without coming to the congress, that's what we're debating, of course, but if on the other hand the information that the administration has communicated as of late to the congress, if that suggests a lighter footprint then there should be no difficulty in pulling out of libya in 15 days and if there is we need to start asking questions about how deeply enmeshed we are if our -- we are, if our participation is truly no boots on the ground. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. receivers, a member of the financial services committee,

and a lieutenant colonel in the united states army with the distinguished 26-year military career. stivers, sorry. mr. stivers: that's all right, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. stivers: thank you. i'd like to thank the chairwoman for yielding me time. i rise in support of the speaker's resolution. with 26 years of military service, my experience has taught me many lessons and those lessons give me pause and concern with regard to the kucinich resolution. i think we need to be prudent, thoughtful and measured in the way we end our involvement in libya and i don't believe that the kucinich resolution does that. even though the president did not follow proper procedures answered should have allowed congress to debate and decide the issue, a 15-day withdrawal would cause other issues. certainly the u.s. is providing current -- currently the u.s. is providing certain refueling logistics and other support functions for our nato allies and unfortunately you create a

15-daytimeline, those allies might not have time to plan or build capacity to resource their plan and effectively continue their operations. i don't agree with how the president's handled our current military mission in libya and i don't think he's currently explained the national security interest of our mission, however i think the troops that have been called to action have performed admirably and i thank them for their service. but now we're involved and a timeframe for withdrawal in the kucinich resolution would hurt our nato allies, the same allies who have stood by us in afghanistan for 10 years. they deserve our cooperation in any transition. i support the speaker's alternative in libya, i think it asks tough questions of the president, requires him to explain our national security interests and justify a strategy to congress and to the american people. if the president doesn't answer

those questions within 14 days, i believe congress should continue to assert its constitutional authority. therefore i support the speaker's alternative resolution as a way forward in libya and in response to the gentleman from california, i'd like to say that i think it's important we get information to make timely decisions. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam speaker, to yield myself 15 seconds in response to the previous speaker , what i'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. if the president doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are we doing? the resolution is silent. this is a resolution filled with things we want and are asking for and demanding and are rumbling about with no consequences. i yield a minute to the gentlelady from california, ms.

woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: former member of the committee. ms. woolsey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, this is a here we go again moment on the house floor. two weeks ago the kucinich amendment passed the house overwhelmingly with a total bipartisan vote because it was the right thing to do. but, no, the other side of the aisle can't stand to let us have an initiative, the right thing to do that they really could agree to. so here we are today debating the boehner resolution to take the air out of the question of whether the united states congress or the white house has responsibility for the war powers act and begging them to know that it is our responsibility. members should not be fooled into voting for the boehner

amendment, the resolution, because it delays action. we should vote for the kucinich resolution that insists that the congress reclaim its authority, take its responsibility and do the right thing regarding libya. vote no on the boehner resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. the gentlelady continues to reserve. ms. ros-lehtinen: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: madam speaker, i have no request for time and prepared to yield back if the gentlelady is. ms. ros-lehtinen: i will use up our remaining minute or so. mr. berman: i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. i was -- will take up the rest of our time. madam speaker, the resolution offered by the speaker is the responsible approach.

it expresses congressional intent. it affords one last opportunity to the president and his administration to work with us in congress to advance u.s. interests in the region. and i hope that the president is listening and that this resolution will serve as a wake-up call leading to immediate consultation. and frankly we have not had that as we would like. if in 14 days, as it says in this resolution, the president has not complied with the request included in the resolution, then this house will consider the next steps. and i urge, therefore, a yes vote on the boehner resolution, a responsible approach to the president to work with us and a plea to give us the information that we requested. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time yields back the balance of her time. -- the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. i do not believe that the president has provided adequate justification for our military operations in libya, nor why

continued humanitarian interest is in our interest. more than two weeks ago i sent a letter to the president outlining our concerns, our nato role, the administration is asking the department of defense to make an additional $400 billion in cuts. to date, i've not received a reply. yet, i believe that forcing the hasty withdrawal of u.s. forces from nato operations in libya would embolden gaddafi and grateful damage our credibility with our allies. consequently, such a move could have dramatic, negative, second order effects on operations that are critical to our national security. such as operations in afghanistan. i believe speaker boehner's resolution addresses much of the frustration shared by members of this body. the resolution re-enforces provisions in the recently passed national defense

authorization act prohibiting the escalation of u.s. participation without expressed authorization from congress. this resolution requires the president to clearly outline the strategic interest that justify intervention in libya. to explain how the operational means being employed will secure them. it requires a prompt and transparent accounting of costs as well as information regarding the capacity and intention of the rebel forces. this information is essential to allow congress to execute its constitutionally mandated oversight role of military operations. again, i fully agree that the administration has been disturbingly dismissive of congress' role in the authorization of military force. but i also feel that passing this resolution is the most effective way of holding the president accountable without sacrificing other vital national interests that would

be damaged by a precipitous withdrawal from nato operations. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i do thank speaker boehner and representative kucinich for bringing these resolutions and bringing this issue to the floor. i believe this is an issue that congress should debate, discuss and ultimately express its opinion on. we have not done that. we are now past 90 days that this mission has been going on in libya. i prefer a much cleaner resolution that simply came out and made a resolution of approval of the president's mission and of the mission that we and nato have undertaken in libya and give a chance to vote an up or down. mr. kucinich's is much more straightforward. it's a resolution of disapproval. again, it gives us an opportunity to debate the issue and express the will of congress. i oppose mr. boehner's resolution.

i also oppose mr. kucinich's resolution because i don't think we should pull away from this mission, should pull out of what nato is doing and the very important work that's going on in libya. mr. boehner's resolution doesn't do any of that. it boldly states that the president has not made a case for the mission in libya. i very strongly disagree with that assessment. now, i will agree, and mr. mckeon and i share the frustration that prior to the launching of this mission there was inadequate of communication between this president and this congress and the president and the american people for reasons of getting into that mission. since that time the president has made it clear why we went into libya. we had a unique situation. i do not believe that the american mirblet should intervene in every conflict in every country. it shouldn't conflict in almost any of them. it takes a unique set of circumstances to call for that intervention. in libya we had, i believe, that unique set of circumstances. number one, we had broad international support. the u.n., nato, the arab

league, all looked at that situation and said intervention was necessary. number two, we had a clear humanitarian crisis. there was no doubt at the time we intervened that if we had not moammar gaddafi would have slaughtered his own people and reasserted control over libya. he made it clear that was what he was going to do. it was clear that the people rising up for the legitimate opportunity to be heard in their government did not have the power and the force to stop him. we did. if we had not acted there was no question that muammar gaddafi would be in charge of libya and we would have shared at least some piece of the responsibility. we in the united states have the power, the force to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and chose not to act, and that's one of the most critical elements in deciding whether or not we should intervene. can we intervene in a successful way? yes, there are many countries throughout the world that face crises right now. in syria, in the sudan, in congo.

whole bunch of places. most of those places there is no clear military mission that we could accomplish and achieve. in libya there was. if which intervened we could stop gaddafi from regaining control of this country. at the time we understood there was no guarantee that that would mean he would be driven from power immediately, but we could at least stop him from doing that. it was a humanitarian crisis that our actions could prevent. i think it made sense and i think the president has clearly articulated that. for congress to pass a resolution saying they have no earthly idea what the president is doing in libya simply means they have not been paying attention for the last couple of months. it's been made clear. i think it's appropriate that we ask the president to regularly keep in touch with us, let us know where the mission is going. i supported the resolution that said no ground troops in libya. i think that's a step too far. i don't think that's something that would be accomplished militarily. i think that's appropriate. the part of the resolution that i oppose is that the president has made no national security case for why we should be

involved in libya. i believe that he has. i don't think we should support a resolution saying otherwise. to have cyrimly allowed the libya -- libya to fall apart and not helped a people that we could clearly help, that were legitimately calling for greater freedom and greater opportunity i think would have been a mistake. so i will oppose the boehner resolution. i will also oppose the kucinich resolution because i don't think we should pull out of the mission. again, i thank all those involved for bringing the debate to the house floor so we can have the debate, so we in congress can assert our authority and express our opinion on this very, very important issue. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. bartlett: thank you for yielding, and i rise in support of the boehner resolution. i'm not here today to argue

whether or not we should be in libya. that is an argument for another day. what i'm here today concerned with is how we got into libya, because i think that was a very important precedent. we went into libya on march 19, operation odyssey dawn, just 12 days later the house committee met and secretary gates was there, and i made this statement. i'm among many people who feel that president obama has involved the united states in an unconstitutional and illegal war in libya. that same day i dropped h.r. 1323 which asks the president to find offsets and nondefense discretionary spending to pay for the war in libya. that was not authorized by the congress because we have no money, and i shouldn't ask my kids and my grandkids to pay for that war.

this is not the king's army. the power to move our army into libya is not inherent in commander in chief. if it were they would not have put in article 1, section 8 the responsibility of the congress to declare war. this is an unconstitutional and illegal war. i think it sets a very dangerous precedent. i hope that we make that very clear in our deliberations today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield 1 1/2 minutes, madam speaker, my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. forbes: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the boehner resolution, but not because i feel that the president has stated a correct policy for us to be in libya. i think he has and all you'll hear on the floor today will lead to a policy that if we adopt it will put us in war

with five or six other countries tomorrow. but secondly, i don't support the fact that how we got in there because clearly he didn't go through the proper procedures that we need, didn't comply with the war powers act. madam speaker, i also realize that regardless of that disagreement he is the president of the united states, and as such he has information about our national defense that many members of congress don't have that we need to have shared with us. and second, madam speaker, as the president of the united states, when it comes to foreign policy issues of this magnitude, we need to give him some latitude to present that case and make it to this congress. madam speaker, the boehner resolution does that in a reasonable way by giving him 14 days to present that information. but i believe as many people do at the end of that 14 days, if he hasn't done so, hasn't made that case, hasn't given us that information, we need to either be prepared to launch the subpoenas to get the information or we need to be back on this floor taking action to cut off the funding of what's taking place there. and with that, madam speaker, i hope we'll support the boehner

resolution, i think it's a reasonable approach, the correct approach and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. turner: thank you, chairman mckeon. the president has not made the case for a military conflict in libya. he has told us who we are against, gaddafi, but he has not told white house we are for. secretary gates -- told us who we are for. secretary gates has told us we know very little about the opposition, we know very little about the rebels. we don't know their geopolitical view to their neighbors, we don't know their view to us. we do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. are we going to have atrocities? we don't know their ideology, we don't know their preferred form of government and we don't know their commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of

mass destruction, an issue that's important in libya. the president has used united nations approval of civil protection to wage all-out war on gaddafi without congressional approval or american support. u.s. admiral locklear in charge of the nato operations against libya recently stated that ground troops will be needed to provide stability in libya once the gaddafi regime falls. yesterday white house press secretary said he believes that the president has the support of the majority of the members of congress. i do not think so. i offered a resolution, house resolution 58, that would voice this body's disapproval of the president's actions in libya. 75 members have co-sponsored this resolution. i believe it's important for this body's voice to be heard. the president has not provided any information as to why we are doing this, what a post-gaddafi regime will look like in libya and what will be our involvement. he is committing us to an extended military action and for congress to be relevant our voices need to be heard.

i support the speaker's resolution and i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor house concurrent resolution 58. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise to oppose this motion. the war crimes tribunal is about to prosecute rad itch. 16 years later. what they finally got, why, because he masterminded the massacre of over 8,000 innocent civilians. we took the lead in the balkans. it was a nato effort. but i think we all know that nato could not have put it an

end to those massacres, that genocide, had we not taken the lead. we ought to act responsibly and we had to act in a timely and forceful manner. now, more recently there have been any number of times since 2000 when the president has had to use american troops for humanitarian reasons against terrorist threats, against whatever was inconsistent fundamentally with our moral values and principles but also endangered american civilians and troops. to tie the president's hands, whether it be a republican or a democratic president, is wrong. we should not be doing this. of course we should be advising the president, working with the president, whoever that

president might be. and we have our committee leadership, we have any number of opportunities to do that. but to pass legislation that is designed to tie the president's hands is inconsistent with the legacy of this body which is to do what is necessary to protect america's interests at home and abroad. may i have one more minute? mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: with regard to libya, we don't know where a what the outcome is going to be in libya. we do know that gaddafi is a bad guy. he's not an ally, he's not even reliable in terms of working with in any economic or foreign policy measure. it is an opportunity to establish a government that we can work with. we can't control that government.

we're not sure of the outcome. but we know the people putting their government together today want to work with the united states, but they need american support. obviously under the umbrella of nato, that's nato's purpose. but none of us should be so naive as to think that nato can operate independent of united states leadership. that's just not the case. we have made the investment in our military capability, we have established ourselves as the world superpower and with that role comes a responsibility to use it appropriately. let's defeat this amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell. mr. rigell: i rise in strong support of house resolution 292 i object to the u.s. murl at that -- military intervention in

libya. my friend and colleague from virginia actually has far more confidence in the intent and the purpose of the rebels than i do. i've heard in testimony, in armed services committee, from multiple top leaders in our country that we simply don't know enough about the rebels and in my view not one single provision of the war powers resolution has been met that would legitimize the president's intervention in libya. since president obama announced military strikes, secretary defense gates admitted that operation odyssey dawn was not in the interest, in the vital national interest of the united states. and this legislation, the boehner resolution reflects and meets the deep obligation we have to support our troops and to uphold the constitution. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to support this

resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: madam speaker, i reserve but i would inquire, i am simply going to give -- use up the rest of the time myself. do you have additional speakers? then i reserve my time. thank you. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. to latzow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. palazzo: thank you, madam speaker. we do not support the president's handling of libya and i agree with my constituents. our country, our military and their families are fatigued by 10 years of war in iraq and afghanistan. the white house is yet to clearly explain to the american people why we should commit more of our precious blood and treasure to a third war. where's the leadership americans expect and deserve when it comes to committing our troops to foreign wars? with reservation, i will support house resolution 292, only because the united states must honor our commitment to our friends and allies engaged in

the libyan conflict. this resolution gives the president 14 days to explain to congress the scope of our objectives in libya and if he fails we should immediately withdraw our support from the conflict and as much as we can care for our friends and allies, we cannot cast aside the laws of our land. mr. president, the american people and this congress have questions and deserve answers. we cannot afford a failure in leadership when american lives are on the line. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i would remind members that they should direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has one minute and the gentleman from washington has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: and we have the right to close? then we just have one speaker so we'll reserve our time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the president has said from the outset that our role in this mission will be limited. limited by critical -- but critical. we are not committing troops, we are not committing the full force of the u.s. military, but what we are contributing, as mr. moran said, is absolutely critical to the success of the mission. we are supporting our nato allies in making sure that this mission is carried out in a very limited and very critical way. and i just want to emphasize again that muammar gaddafi is not someone that is in the best national security interests of the united states of america. he has a long, long history of weapons of mass destruction, of supporting terrorist groups, of economisting terrorist acts against united states citizens and in general being an unstable and destabilizing figure. when the president of libya decided to rise up to throw him out, it was a very appropriate thing for them to do. now, we all wish that mr. gaddafi would have gone quietly and simply, that certainly would have been the easier way to go,

but he didn't. and to protect those people who had legitimate aspirations for a better government, we needed to intervene military -- militarily to assist. i think in this instance the best thing about this is we were not alone. the arab league, the united nations, nato took the lead. there is a great deal of instability throughout the middle east and that is unquestionably in the national security interests of the united states of america to do whatever we can to try and reduce that instability and make sure that we have friends, allies and also governments that legitimately represent the aspirations of their people. that is one of the greatest problems we've had, we have supported governments in the past in the middle east who didn't have the support of their people. we need not just the support of governments, we need the support of the people in that region, this is a critical opportunity to gain that support. i believe that's clearly in the national security interests of the american people. so i do not agree with mr. boehner's resolution in saying that the president has not articulated the case, he has. we in the house should vote,

whether we approve it or not, but i don't think it is correct to say that the case has not been made. let's have a vote in this body, as we will in the kucinich resolution, of whether or not we support what's going on there or not but we should not simply be asking the president for something he has already provided. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield the remaining balance of our time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from indiana, a member of the armed services committee, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for i believe one minute. mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support as many of my colleagues have of house resolution 292, because this congress is a co-equal branch of government. and we must never be a quiet co-equal branch, especially in military matters. when the u.s. ends -- sends its sons and daughters into harm's way, it must only be done to protect america's vital national security interests and where there's a clear plan to advance those interests. we know our nation's insolvent with a national debt of over $14

trillion, our troops are already overextended, we're hearing, in afghanistan and pakistan. meanwhile the administration's talking about defense spending cuts at the very same time it's piling on this new mission, a humanitarian mission, a narrow humanitarian mission, we're told, on top of all our other commitments. now what gives? this congress needs to be heard. our president has failed to properly define what vital national security interests justify this military intervention and with this resolution we give him 14 days to do so. now, sadly and ironically, by becoming involved in libya, our nato alliance, which does remain a vitally important national security interest, may well have been put at risk. so this congress will be heard. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek redskin this nation? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. pursuant to house resolution 294, i call up house concurrent resolution 51 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 51, concurrent resolution directing the president pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove the united states armed forces from libya. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 294, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution will be debatable for one hour with 30 minutes controlled by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. miss ros-lehtinen: thank you -- ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the committee on foreign affairs, my friend, mr. berman, be allowed to control 15 minutes of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to house con.res. 51 directing the president to remove united states armed forces from libya. the president has failed to make the illegal -- legal even constitutional case he owes to the congress and american people before committing american forces to a voluntary conflict. but the situation as it stands today is an important -- poses an important u.s. national security consideration and it requires this body to oppose the kucinich resolution. these are, what are these considerations, madam speaker, these are the sudden u.s. withdrawal from libyan operations proposed by this resolution could do irrepresent rabble harm to the nato alliance and ultimately undermine support for nato efforts in afghanistan. also the longer gaddafi is able

to cling to power and continue fighting, the more that he will destabilize the larger region. conflict is already spilling over into neighboring countries, tunisia, for example, which is undergoing a fragile transition of its own. also there are significant proliferation concerns at stake, including the need to secure libyan chemical munitions and prevent the flow of heavy and light weaponry from leaking across the porous borders of libya. also, extremist organizations that pose a credible threat to american interests including al qaeda and the islamic magrib, already are exploiting the opportunity to arm themselves and organize. so while i share the frustration of my colleagues, i am deeply concerned that an abrupt withdrawal of support for the nato nation would have

repercussions that extend far beyond the borders of libya. adoption of this resolution would send a signal to gaddafi that if he can just hang on for just 15 days more, the alliance will crumble and he can resume his destructive behavior and his destabilizing activities. in egypt the stability necessary to prevent extremist elements from seizing control could be compromised if the conflict in libya remains unresolved. furthermore, madam speaker, providing gaddafi free reign by forcing the u.s. to rapidly withdraw from the nato operation would pose an even more virulent threat to such other allies in the region as israel. an emboldened gaddafi regime would be in a position to provide both destabilizing types and amounts of conventional

weapons as well as unconventional capabilities through new and existing smuggling routes. to violent extremists in lebanon, the west bank, and gaza, extremists who seek the disruption of israel. a u.s. withdrawal in the manner that is called for in this resolution, in fact mandated in this resolution, could have detrimental consequences for countries such as jordan and the united arab emirates who provide critical support to the united states and our nato allies in afghanistan. and as operations experts from the department of defense warned yesterday, an abrupt withdrawal from libya operations as this resolution demands would severely undermine support by our european union -- european allies. in fact, it would have a

detrimental effect on nato's efforts in afghanistan both in terms of weakening our mission partners and emboldening the taliban, al qaeda, and associated elements. it would compromise the safety and security of u.s. forces that at this very moment are engaged in a battle against heavily armed enemy forces in afghanistan. madam speaker, as many of my colleagues know, my daughter-in-law, lindsay, served in iraq and in afghanistan. i also have two committee staffers, one in the army reserve and one in the marine reserves, who recently returned from serving a year each in afghanistan. they have emphasized that the potential dangers to our troops there of a nato pullout or decrease of forces in afghanistan due to a need to refocus them on ongoing operations in libya is indeed dangerous for the united states.

they have emphasized that operations in libya do not exist in a vacuum. recall that the house just this last week adopted an amendment to the national defense authorization bill to prevent u.s. military or private security contractors from establishing or maintaining a ground presence in libya. spiker boehner -- speaker boehner has offered a resolution that we discussed previously that further underscores that the congress does not support putting u.s. boots on the ground in libya. now, many have argued that congress needs to strongly exert its prerogatives under war powers. we must do so, madam speaker, but do so in a prudent and responsible manner that protects the legitimate national security interests of the united states. this resolution, madam speaker, does not do so. so i urge a no vote and with that, madam speaker, i reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the prime co-sponsor of this important constitutional initiative, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to start off by saying this is not a paragraph zahn issue. i'm very happy to co-sponsor this legislation because it's the only legislation we are discussing today that has teeth in it. it really deals with the problem. now, gaddafi is a bad guy. and he ought to be replaced. there's a lot of tyrants around the world that ought to be replaced. but should the united states go to war any place we want to get rid of a bad guy unless it's in our national interest or unless we are at risk or there's been a declaration of war? no. we could go to war any place we want to. if we just say this guy's a bad

guy and he's killing his own people, we could do it in syria, ivory coast, we could do it all over the place. but the congress of the united states is the body that's supposed to be consulted by the president before we go to war. the president did not do this. we are contributing about 2/3, or at least half of the war effort. it's cost over $700 million and it will be over a billion before it's all over. and the president has taken us into this conflict without the authority of the congress, without the support of the congress. he did get the arab league. he did get the united nations. he did talk to the french and the english, but he didn't talk to the people's house, the congress of the united states. and the president did not have the authority to do this. now, the reason i support the kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the white house that cannot -- they cannot do this again. they cannot unilaterally go into syria or the ivory coast or any

place else without talking to the people who represent the -- the congress who represents the people all across this country. the president should not have done this. and the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the kucinich resolution, which i co-sponsored. i'm a co-author of it. now, i am going to vote for the boehner resolution because it does send a signal, but it does not solve the problem. the only way to solve the problem is to let the president know you cannot, should no, and will not be able to do this again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you. i rise in opposition to the resolution. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i just listened to my chairman, i'm very fond of her, make a very compelling case

for the national security interests we have in seeing through this operation that is now going on against gaddafi and libya. in detail with specifics i completely support it. the only thing i didn't hear was, mr. president, while you didn't consult with us enough and you haven't provided all the information, i want to thank you as our president and our commander in chief for pursuing america's national security interests in this current operation. great job, keep it going, be a little better on the information, a little more on the consulting, but stick with it. that's what i didn't hear. i want to compliment mr. kucinich for offering this resolution. we disagree on the president's policy. my colleague wants to withdraw forces while i support the ongoing operations in libya.

but unlike the majority, mr. kucinich is taking seriously this body's fundamental responsibility to legislate on the use of force. the president commenced combat operations in libya to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. a massacre at the hands of gaddafi's forces. there was bipartisan support for this effort. and the president prevented massive loss of life through the decisive use of force. we don't have to speculate about that. gaddafi told the entire world about his plans for benghazi, to go tour to door, closet to closet, to find and eliminate his opponents. i will continue to believe the mission in libya is relevant and necessary as does my chairman and as does the speaker. and i believe it's achieving success. gaddafi's forces have been driven out of eastern libya and out of misrata in the west. high level defections are on the

increase. demonstrations are once again breaking out in tip poely. suggesting a weakening government control. progress is slower than we like but it is steady. efforts to force a withdrawal of forces would reverse this progress and jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of libyan now benefiting from the nato operation. and this resolution demands not merely withdrawal, it demands withdrawal within 15 dis. think -- 15 days. think about what a removal in 15 days as required by this resolution would mean. would he would be giving gaddafi a free hand to maintain control in libya and continue his campaign against civilians. we would be thumbing our nose at our nato partners whose support on the ground has been and continues to be so crucial in afghanistan. we would likely threaten stability of every arab nation where democracy has its best hope -- for the very arab nations where democracy has its best hope of success, egypt and

tunisia, each of which flank libya and affected by its internal developments. we would send a message to assad of syria and dictators everywhere that our support for freedom and humane governance is at best luke warm and transitory . hang in there for a few weeks, mr. dictator. we'll go ahead. and as the families of the victims of pan am 103 know better than any of us, a gaddafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. he might even reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction. we need to give the president more time to pursue this mission, to do otherwise would be to alienate our allies, to damage our regional interests, and once again to invite a horrible massacre of libyan civilians. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the chairman of the committee on armed services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to house continuing resolution 51, although i share my colleagues' concerns regarding our military operations in libya. in fact, i sent a letter to the president two weeks ago to which i have not received a reply, making it clear i would have serious reservations regarding a request for authorization of military force in libya. moreover, i support house resolution 292 which we have also debated here today. i do not believe the president has adequately sought congressional authorization, nor has he provided sufficient information for congress to perform its constitutional oversight. nevertheless, i cannot support the resolution before us. this resolution would require the president to remove all u.s.

forces within 15 days. such a short lead time offers our allies no time to prepare for the withdrawal of u.s. forces and make no mistake, the hasty withdrawal of u.s. forces would cripple allied operations and embolden gaddafi. the united states provides adequate capabilities that our nato allies and other partners cannot provide. either in kind or at all levels required. we provide over 75% of all aerial refueling. 70% of all intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. nearly a quarter of all the aircraft, including fighter aircraft for enemy air key fences, armed predators providing aerial surveillance and strike capability, including low level targeted strikes in urban centers where gaddafi's forces have entrenched themselves, and electronic warfare aircraft for jamming and

support in targeting. . reasonable people can disagree with the extent to which involvement in libya was in our national strategic interest. but having committed our forces, a precipitous withdrawal would certainly have implications for u.s. national security and our strategic interests around the world. we should make certain allied efforts are not undermined at the last minute. as chairman of the armed services committee, i will continue to ensure that the committee conducts robust oversight of ongoing military operations and i will continue to press the president for answers. but this resolution is not the appropriate means to bring about an end to the stalemate in libya. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposition and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i recognize mr. rangel, i yield two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: let me thank mr. kucinich and i support his efforts over the years, but especially today in allowing this very sensitive constitutional question to be debated. i ask and almost pleaded that he allow me to follow my friend, dan burton, because nothing could prove to our colleagues and those that know both of us how nonpartisan this issue is and should be. this is not a question really of past presidents who always thought they were doing the best for the united states of america when they put out men and -- put our men and women in harm's way. none of them thought they were doing anything immoral. this is not a democratic problem, it's not a republican problem, it's not a problem of the president of the united states, not nixon, not kennedy, not johnson, certainly not president obama, certainly not the bushes. it's a problem of the house of representatives and the united states senate.

this is a congressional problem. we have not fulfilled our responsibility. some people have heard say, well, this isn't reached the level, it should be more. well, ask the men and women that make the sacrifices and come home and leave their fallen friends there, whether this was a war. ask those mothers and fathers and children that's lost their loved ones whether this is war. it's easy for us to say that we're not going to get involved, let the president have the authority. but the final analysis when we go to the funerals, these brave men and women may not come from your districts because they don't have to make the sacrifices in these united states. we know who has to volunteer, who makes the sacrifices and we sit back and wash our hands and say we didn't think that this reached to the level where we had to give approval to the president of the united states. i'm not saying that the

president is right or wrong, i'm saying we are and, mr. kucinich, i thank you for the opportunity because no longer should there be a debate as to whether or not it's little bit yarks whether it's korea or wherever it is. we have a constitutional responsibility. thank you forgiving us an opportunity to talk about this -- for giving us an opportunity to talk about this as members of the united states congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm honored to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, the chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan voiced for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam speaker. and i agree with the gentleman from new york and our political floss fiss may be different, i think it's a powerful and passionate speech. what frustrate mess the most is that we're even having this debate in this way, because the president has not led on this particular issue. he should have come before

congress. i think that's clear. i don't think anyone really objects to the fact that he should have come here when any time we put our troops in harm's way, absolutely. i think he's done not a great job about talking what our national security interests are in libya and what role we're playing in libya. bad marks all the way around. but the kucinich amendment, excuse me, resolution, is dangerous. i do believe we have national security interests at stake here. even though the president has gone about it in all the wrong way, there are national security interests and to stand up today and say we're frustrated with the president, we're going to stomp our feet and we're going to bring them home, leaving our allies holding the bag, is unconscionable. unconscionable. here's what happens if the kucinich amendment -- excuse me, resolution passes. the national block aid becomes at risk. -- blockade becomes at risk.

our ability to refuel nato aircraft who are doing strikes, not the united states who are doing strikes, mind you, our british and our italian and our french allies are doing combat strikes, goes away. the fact that we cannot get in and do particular efforts on making it very difficult for them to see with true radar and actually target planes happens by the united states. that goes away. who would do that to friends and allies in the middle east of a fight? and here's our national -- in the middle of a fight? and here's our national security interest. they have thousands and thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. this isn't a guess, we're not reading some analytical sheet, many you of you have seen it, i have seen it, we know it's there, it's declared. what happens to those chemical weapons in a place where al qaeda is growing stronger not weaker? there's only one country in the world that has the unique capable to keep an eye on it and take care of it when the opportunity arises, that's the

united states of america. that is in our national interest. there are thousands and thousands and thousands of shoulder-fired antiaircraft weapons that keep me awake at night. we have the unique capability in the united states to make sure that those weapons systems don't fall into the hands of those who would do us harm, the terrorists who proliferate in northern africa right now. those are in our national security interests. so, yes, let's have a debate, i think the speaker's approach is absolutely appropriate. it's sad that we that come to that point where we had to inform this administration, sir, you have not made your case, you need to come and make your case, and argue when he does that, when he makes his case, i think the american people will be with him. but he has to make the case and he needs congress' consult and advice on this particular issue and i argue he needs our approval to continue to move forward. i hope that we don't get really

small in our politics and we're so angry at this president for not making his case on something as sensitive as this that would we -- that we would ruin our national interests as we move forward. they are important allies, our french and our british. now, we've been frustrated at them and i'm sure they're frustrated at us, but they have helped, they have spilled their blood and their treasure in places like iraq and afghanistan and they currently help us fight terrorism where we find it in the world. do you poke your friend in the eye because you're mad? no. this is an important issue that has to be bigger than our political parochial beliefs, it has to be bigger than our congressional districts, this is about america, our future, our allies and, yes, our national security. who better to make sure that those shoulder-fired weapons don't go someplace than us? who better to make sure that those chemical weapons don't fall into the hands of terrorists who seek to kill

innocent men, women and children? gaddafi has been proven a state sponsor of terror. the pan am bombing, he killed hundreds. he killed u.s. soldiers in germany in the 1980's. our u.s. soldiers through an act of terrorism. we know he still has terrorism hit squads, we know it. can't prove that he's engaged them yet but we know they exist. why would we walk away from that threat when we know he's under siege and feeling desperate? this is the time we should stand with our allies, madam speaker. this is the time that we should say yes, our national security interests are at heart and yes, mr. president, come down and meet your constitutional obligation and show this congress why we're there, what role we're playing and what it means to our national security. i would urge a strong rejection of cutting and running in the kucinich amendment and a strong support of the speaker of the house's right approach to bring the president to congress as he needs to be and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i want to yield two minutes to a gentleman who has been very closely involved in helping to construct bipartisan support for h.con.res. 51 and i thank him, mr. mcclintock of california. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of his resolution. we need to be crystal clear on this, without prior congressional authorization, under the war powers act the president may only commit armed forces to hostilities for 60 days if there is a direct attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. there was none. so there is no 60-day clock and the unprovoked attack on libya from day one constituted an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance and

the question is, what are we going to do about that? if the president felt there was moral justification to attack libya, he was constitutionally required to make that case to the congress and to get its authorization. he did not. now, the argument we hear against this resolution comes down to this. we're already committed, it's too late for congress to order a withdrawal without harming america's reputation or undermining its allies. well, if we take that position we have just changed the entire constitution to read as follows, the president may attack any country he wants for any reason that he wants and the congress has no choice but to follow. that's what they're saying. the president has crossed a bright constitutional line and this congress has a clear moral and constitutional duty to

intervene and only the kucinich resolution actually does so short of sending a strong letter to the president. if we fail to do so, we'll destroy the work of the american founders by fundamentally changing the legislative and executive functions on the most momentous decision that our nation can make and we will take our country down dark and bloody roads that the american founders sought to avoid. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank my friend for yielding and for his leadership on in issue. madam speaker, it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in libya in support of democracy and the rule of law, that we're also trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of our united states constitution, the supreme

rule of law here at home. the united states constitution clearly states that the president's power as commander in chief to introduce our armed forces into hostilities may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances. number one, a declaration of war, number two, a specific statutory authorization. number three, a national emergency created by an attack on the united states. that has not happened. so despite my great respect and affection for our president, a lawful premise for this libyan operation does not exist. in closing i just want to say that i've been to iraq 13 times and afghanistan 10 times. i don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. they're all on their third tour of duty or fourth tour of duty. we are stretched thin. and this was a gratuitous action. we should not be there, there's no lawful basis for this prosecution of this war so i ask for the support of this resolution. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr.

johnson, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. this issue of war and peace and separation of powers transcends poll -- partisan politics. two years ago i began what's known as the center aisle caucus which has large membership now. our goal is bipartisan solutions to america's challenges and this bill reflects that approach. h.c.r. 51 on paper addresses our illegal war in libya. but in spirit it calls into question american presence in the middle east and it should command the attention of the national media, if you're listening, and every american citizen. today i issue a challenge to an often divided congress. to my democratic colleagues, i ask you to candidly acknowledge that war is war, even when a democratic president initiates or perpetuates that war. to my republican colleagues, ask to you acknowledge that a sincere and effective attack on our crippling national debt

while laying out defense spending on the table is disingeneral woice -- to all my colleagues, i ask you to know that our global warfare kills men and women and innocent people all around the world every day. two, we cannot impose our standards of democracy, humanitarianism and culture, as much as we want to, on nations that don't care and resent our self-proclaimed role as judge and jury. three, there is little if any connection between our inaction libya and the safety of citizens in st. louis, missouri, or mount zion, illinois. we spend almost $700 billion a year on defense, a significant portion of that for three wars now. three days ago we voted on an issue of whether to increase our national debt limit to nearly $17 trillion. from president bush to obama and well before, presidents have flagrantly and arrogantly violated article 1, section 8 of

the constitution, not to mention the war powers act. . the speaker's resolution that we'll vote on here in a few minutes was strongly worded and i believe sincerely offered. but it was just that, words. it was not and should not be a cover for any member of this chamber to failure to support the kucinich bill. which puts teeth, real teeth into congressional prerogatives. support the constitution. support common sense. support fiscal responsibility. and support peace. support the kucinich resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to mr. nadler of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman from virginia earlier said that the kucinich resolution would tie the president's hands. yes, it would. the whole point of the constitution is to tie the president's hands. the president not this

particular president, any president, must not have the power to commit this country to war on its own authority without the concurrence of congress. that is the point of the constitution. george washington said the constitution vested the power of declaring war in congress. therefore no expedition can be undertaken until they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. abraham lincoln said they resolved to so frame the constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. that's what this really does. eefer the last 60 years since -- over the last 60 years since world war ii, power is slow to the president. time, when bombers were over the pole, you couldn't call congress into session. congress surrendered much power to the presidency. korea was an undeclared war, vietnam, congress was fooled.

they called the gulf of tonguin resolution -- tongin -- tonkin resolution. the issue before us is not consultation with congress. it's not a lack of information to congress. it's the fact that congress must act. and that is why the boehner resolution is beside the point. now, in past there is a good reason, there is time, there is emergencies. but here secretary gates said that if no threat to the vital -- national security of the united states. we have time to negotiate with the arab league. we had time to go to the u.n. there was time to go to congress and ask for authorization for use of military war. the president gave us his reasons for going into libya. not everyone agrees with those, but the question is not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: it's enforcing the constitution. if we pass the kucinich resolution, the president would have 15 days to come before us and ask us to authorize the use

of force if that is necessary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i recognize mr. poe of texas for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, the united states is engaged in a war in the name of humanity. the president's actions did not follow the constitution. they could not follow the war powers resolution. -- they do not follow the war powers resolution. it is unconstitutional action on the part of the united states. i served on the bench in texas for over 20 years trying criminal cases and our daily business we followed the law. and the law required that you have a trial if conconvicted, the person was sentenced. . i never tried a case that a person was so bad we just skipped the trial and went ahead and sentenced him and had the trial later to prove it was a good idea. we followed the law. and the same law that required a

procedure in a trial that's in the u.s. constitution, the constitution also says there is a procedure for going to war. and the procedure is that congress, not the president, instigates war. james madison, the person who wrote the constitution, said, the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war. and most prone to it. therefore with studied care we have vested the question of war with the legislature. that would be us. congress. we have not fulfilled our obligation. the war in libya violates the constitution. the war powers act. it is not in the national security of the united states. it is said, well, the french made -- we may disrespect the french. i say to the french, you respect

our constitution and our constitution says that the declaration and going to war is the responsibility of congress not any executive. it has been said that the constitution may be inconvenient, but it is meant to be, madam speaker. war is a serious matter. and presidents and congresses should be an inconvenience on the war, the road to war. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield a minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, the first air strikes against libya were launched in march. now it's june. 76 days after this mission began, congress still hasn't been given an opportunity to vote for or against a declaration of war. every member of this body regardless of individual feelings should demand, demand that their constitutional

authority be respected. the engagement in libya is lingering without accountability or checks on presidential power. without a vigorous debate about the consequences of our actions, what is the end game? what is the timetable? what are the metrics or benchmarks of success? with the united states already fighting in two theaters with the human and financial costs of iraq and afghanistan mounting every day, $10 billion a month alone in afghanistan, our military is stretched to its breaking point. we simply cannot take on a third war. 15 seconds will to. thank you. last week by overwhelming majority of 416-5, this body voted to say no to boots on the ground in libya.

today we must go one step further. we must support h.con.res. 51 and end the car in libya all together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: yield two minutes to mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. jones: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from ohio for introducing this resolution. it's just so ironic that on may 26, cnn poll found that a majority of american people, 55%, believe congress not the president should have final authority for deciding whether the united states should continue its military mission in libya. yes, american people, you are exactly right. and that is why we need to support mr. kucinich's

resolution. it's been amazing to me that i have heard so much debate today about nato's feelings, nato's feelings, how about the feelings of the american people? how about the people that pay the taxes in this country? how about their feelings? isn't it time that their feelings come first? that's why i sincerely believe and i want to be on the floor today because i thank mr. boehner, the speaker of the house, for presenting the resolution, but that does not do it. that does not do it. the constitution says that mr. kucinich is right with this resolution. the american people say that he is right with this resolution. the american people are calling on the congress to meet their constitutional duties and to vote for this resolution. madam speaker, before i close, i want to say again to mr. kucinich, thank you for taking the lead on this. this should actually be the only resolution we are voting on, but let's show the american people we believe in the constitution and let's support mr. kucinich's

resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: could we get the amount of time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from ohio has 13 1/4 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has a minute and a half remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, madam chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this resolution is not as much about libya as it is about us. wouldn't it be wonderful if we wouldn't it be wonderful if we could control events