fem. many subjects will be covered. in-depth from the studio, and your calls and questions for eric pose ner. find schedule information online at booktv.org. >> reporting for the new york times and her sex discrimination lawsuit against the newspaper. we will look back 50 years of america's failed attempts to overthrow the castro regime at the bay of pigs. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history.

>> today the house took up a pair of resolutions dealing with u.s. military operations in libya. the first offered by john boehner called for the president to detail his plans for military operations in libya within 14 days. that resolution passed. the second was a better from representative dennis kucinich of ohio that call for the immediate withdrawal of u.s. forces from the libyan mission based on the 1973 war powers act. the resolution failed. here is the floor debate on those measures. this is 2.5 hours. and i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. 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 secuty 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 garding 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 aie 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 africas 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 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,hat are the political and military objectives of the united states and libya? how do we intend to achieve them? what specific commitments ve we made to our nato operations? and how might these impact our

commitment in afanistan? 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 continu

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 decisns 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 ou commitments to our troops and to our allies. let me lay out exactly what this resoluon does. first, it establhes 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 consequentiatime 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 gentlemayields 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 ilure 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.ucinich'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 restriions 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. its 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 bo 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 presint all not deploy or matain 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 tohe 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 admistration 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 o 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 diators 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 acon 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 demratic 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 conitution 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 talki 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 involvedn 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 reqrements 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 nutes 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 sucheasures 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 ds 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 constituti. 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 conduca 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 yieldi. 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 29 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 houseoreign affairs commite 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 prlems 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 resotion 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 subje 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 a may have the unintended effect of enhancing the executive's powers directly at the expense of congress. i urge my colleaes 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 califora. 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 exce 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 califnia 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 imptant. 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 meaniness 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 soany 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 lit 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. vo no on this resolution,

don't use it as a sidetep, 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 ntleman from florida voiced for four minutes. mr. young: madam speaker, i thank my friend and the chairman for yielding me this te 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 letterrying 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 prettylear , 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 ti. well, so far on the libya issu 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 approiating 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 esident 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 thanmr. 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,0% 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 yid 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, mexperience 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 believthat 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-daytimene, 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 plained the national security interest of our mission, however i ink 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 presidt, requires him to explain our national security interests and juify a strategy to congress and to the american people. if the president doesn't answer those questions within 14 ys,

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 paed the house overwhelmingly with a total bipartisan vote because it was the right ing to do. but, no, the other side of the aisle can't stand to let us have a 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,he resolution,

because itelays action. we should vote for the kucinich resolution that insts 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 resee 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 consultaon. 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 regnized 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 operationsn 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 operation that are critical to our national security. such as operations in afghanistan. i believe speaker boehner's resoluon addresses much of the frustration shared by members of this body. the resolution re-enforces provisions in the recently passed national defense

authorizion 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 vil national interests that would beamaged 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 myse such time as i may nsume. 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 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 americ 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 t, 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 wawhat 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 iervene 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 dng 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 portunity i think would have been a mistake. so i will oppose the boehner resolution. i will also oppose the kucinich resotion 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,o 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 gentman 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'tsk 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 gentman 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. forb. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for a minute and a half. . 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 someatitude to present that case and me 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 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, think it's a reasonable approach, t correct approach and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balancof 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 gentman 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. thpresident 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-outar 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 lib. 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 nutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is cognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, 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 balkan. it was a nato effort. but i think we all know that nato could not have put it a

end to those massacres, that genocide, had we not taken the lead. we ought to act responsibly and had to act in a timely and forceful manr. 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 antroops. 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 y. 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. wee 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 lears in our country that we simply don't know enough about the rebels and in my view not one single provisn 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 geleman 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 collgue, 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. ith: 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 critic 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 thcase 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 donto 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 defensspending 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 yiel 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: ank you, madam speaker. pursuant to house resolution 294, i call up house concurrent resolution 51 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro teore: 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 gentwoman 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 yu -- 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 mpore: 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 dergoing a fragile transition of its own. also there are significant proliferation concerns astake, including the need to secure libyan chemical munitions and prevent the flow of heavy and light weaponryrom 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 concernethat 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 resu 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 unconvention 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. witrawal in the manner that is called for in this resolution, in fact mandated in this resolution, could have detrimental consequencesor 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 ha 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 colleaguesnow, m 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. reca 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 -- spker 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 ates. 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 paragrh 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 authity 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, b 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,he reason i support the kucich 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 probm. 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 times i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i just listened to my chairma 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 goinon 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 itgoing, 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 withdr forces while i support the ongoing operations i libya. but unlike the majority, mr.

kucinich is taking seriously this body's fundamental responsibili 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

breang 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 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 hasts best hope -- for the very ab 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 arod 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 spear, 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 gdafi. the united states provides adequate capabilities tha 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 rust 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 t balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i recognize mr. rangel, i yield two minutes. the speaker pro mpore: 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 men 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, notennedy, not johnson, certainlyot 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 're not going to get involved, let the president have the authority. but the nal analysis when we go to the funerals, these brave men and women may not come from your districts bause they don't have to make the sacrices 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. rogersthe chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan voiced for five minutes. mr. roge: 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 ha 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 arisesthat'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 placesike 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 ian important issue that has to be bigger than our political parochial beliefs, it has to be bigger than our congressional districts, this 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 ose 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. soldierthrough 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 feing 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 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 geleman'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-y clock and e unprovoked attack on libya from day one constituted an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance and

the question is, what are we gog 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 entir 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 foders 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 exersed 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 fection for our president, a lawful premise for this libyan operation es 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 candiy 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. tw we cannot impose our standards of democracy, humanitarianism and culte, 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 cinich 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 -- ov 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 por to the presidency. korea was an undeclared war, vietnam, congress was fooled. they calledhe 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 fac that congress must act. and that is whthe 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 ose, 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 ithat 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 hiand 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 tempe: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield a minute to the gentlelady from calirnia, 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 beeniven 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 tor. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman 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 becausi 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 isight 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 s 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 speake this resolution is n as much about libya as it is about us. wouldn't it be wonderful if we could contl events around the world, determine the future, and

always accurately predict the consequences of our actions? that's not what life is all about. the best we can do is to esblish the valuesnd the principles that define us individually as citizens and collectively as a nation. this resolution is not about whether we should be involved. we are always going to be involved because we are the world's economic, military, and moral superpower. and to choose not to act, particularly in time of such a crisis and transformation that is occurring throughout the arab world, is in fact to choose.

and in this case it would be to choose to define us as a people. who have decided to let the -- look the other way. to choose not to hear the cries of the desperate help of the libyan people who have chosen to put their lives on the line. in the cause of democracy, of individual liberty, and freedom from oppression. these are the values that define us as a people and as a nation. and they are the values, frankly, that must give hope to a world of oppression and despotism that will in fact continue to exist and in fact will gain strength if we do not stand up, speak out, and also be

there with them in such a time as this. that's why we should defeat the kucinich amendment because it's really about who we are as a people. and whether we still have the courage and the consequence tancy to defend -- constanty to defined the high ground. when the rest of the world has to look up, not down and not sideways, as this resolution would place us, but up. we will in fact be advancing our own security and prosperity and the integrity of our nation. because we live in a world who really wants to only shine as brightly as -- another 15 seconds. mr. berman: additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an

additional minute. mr. moran: thank you. we must always bear in mind that we live in a world that wants more than anything to shine as brightly as the beacon of freedom and hope that we represent. and we should always bear in mind that we have the privilege of representing and burnishing ever brighter and we do that every time that in a time of crisis when there is cost and potential consequence, when we show the courage and constantcy that defines us once again we are called upon to be equal to our history. this may not seem like a

terribly critical vote in the sche of things, but to every one of those libyans who have chosen to put their lives on the line for the values that are defined by who america is, it is a big deal. it is fering. it is their lives. it is their hope. it is their future. that's why this resolution should be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: an w should continue to be proud of who we are and who our nation must be. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. . mr. kucinich: i yield to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: thank you. this is a defining moment for us as a people, this is a defining moment for us as a body, this is a defining moment for the united states constitution. with the civil war in north africa, there is no clear and present danger to the united

states of america. therefore in acts of war the president has a constitutional duty and obligation to come to the congress to seek approval. for the prest to suggest that he got approval from the united nations is offensive and it's wrong. no, mr. president, authorization to go to war comes from the american people and it comes from the united states congress. we must stand tall and true to the constitution. we have no choice but to vote on this action. this is a defining moment. what is absent in all this discussion, i point out to my colleagues, i see no resolution to go to war, i don't see a resolution that says, thiss what we should be doing. please vote in favor of this amendment. stand true and tall for the constitution. this is a defining moment. i appreciate mr. kucinich for bringing forth this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. the speaker pro tempore: i would remind members to address their

comments to the chair. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield a minute to theentleman from texas, mr. paul. the chair: the gentleman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong support for h.con.res. 51. we need to pass this resolution to send this very strong message . we have been told by those who oppose this message that we should not have an abrupt withdrawal from the region. but i would strongly suggest that what we should be talking about is the abrupt and illegal entry into war. that's what we have to stop. since we went in abruptly and illegally we need to abruptly leave. it has also been said by those who oppose this resolution that they concede that the congress should assume their prerogatives over the war powers but do it gradually. i would strongly suggest that when we took our oath of office we assumed that radically and

suddenly, we took an oath of office to obey the constitution, not defer to the united nations and that we already have assumed that responsibility and i would also suggest if we do nothing, if we do not pass this resolution, it is the sin of omission that we commit. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield main to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the kucinich resolution. i'd hoped to be able to support the boehner resolution, i share the speaker's concern that a withdrawal called for by the kucinich rolution sends a less than optimal signal to our nato allies. while we're on the subject of signals, i am far more concerned about the puzzling, confusing, mystifying signal we send by passing a resolution that affirms that the president has

not fulfilled his conitutional or statutory obligations yet offer noes remedy, only a mild rebuke followed by a questionnaire. madam speaker, i was here in 2001 when we authorized the use ofs for to enter afghanistan. there was just one de-- dissenting vote. when a threat to our national security is perceived, it's been the long standing practice of congress tsupport the administration in its actions. the greater threat today in my view is a perpetual acquiescence of this body in situations such as we face today in libya. where we tolerate the use of military force when the threat to our national curity is less obvious. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i recognize mr. frank for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: madam speaker, i think the president erred in not following the war powers act in the spirit of the constitution. he should have askedus. if he had i would have said no

then and i say no now. let me disagree with those of my colleagues who have talked about what a terrible man gaddafi is as a reason for the united states to be spending our money there. yes, he's a thaugthug who ought to be removed but it cannot be that america has to be the 911 for the world and that we are the ones who have to respond everywhere, every time. i heard one of my colleagues on the other side say, well, the europeans are there, but let's not poke them in the eye. poke them in the eye? we havfor years, since the beginning of nato, been subsidizing them so they have military budgets less than half of ours as a percentage of their g.d.p. so, they can do better than us in health care and competitiveness and every other way. yes, he should be opposed. there are european nations, developed wealthy nations just across the mediterranean. why do they have to have america come nearly 4,000 miles to do it? and it not just libya. this is defining. are we going to go forward with

a situation in which america undertakes to defend everybody in the world everywhere even when they are not greatly threatened as is the case with nato or with missile defenses against nonexistent missile threats from iran, or do we say that we will bear our fair share but not more? we have got to stop subsidizing the rest of the world. particularly now. and when members from the appropriations committee come up and tell us, you got to go and do this, but let's cut police in massachusetts, let's cut housing in ohio, let's cut transportation in california, we cannoteduce our deficit in a way that allows us to maintain any concern for the quality of life here if we continue to spend money promiscuously over there. let's go beyond that. we're not just talking about libya. what about the paradox in afghanistan where we will spend $100 billion a year and be told by the president of afghanistan that he doesn't like what we're doing. fine, let him have if, let him -- let's not stop forcing him to

take our $100 billion a year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: could i inquire how much time is left on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 9 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from california has seven minutes and the gentlelady from florida has 1 1/2 minutes. remaining. mr. kucinich: i yield mr. southerland one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. southerland: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. southerland: i'd like to thank e gentleman for yielding me a minute this morning. today i think we owe the american people an apology because we all as a house are here to defend and protect the constitution of the united states and it has been way t long before this debate has been had on this floor. there's much more at risk today than libya. what is at risk today is the very constitution that we have

sworn to protect and to uphold. if the constitution is at risk, then this house is at risk. when this house is blatant ignored by another branch, by the president of the united states, then the people are blatantly ignored by the president of the united states and this house will fall. i applaud those that have sponsored this bill and i rise in support of it today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. or the gentleman from california. mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california , mr. stark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. stark: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and support h.con.res. 51, a bipartisan resolution directing the president to remove the united states armed forces from libya within 15 days. i'm proud to support this

resolution by representatives kucinich, burton, thank gives congress and therefore the american people the power to decide whether america enters into or continues a war which destroys our economy, which destroys unnecessarily human lives who do not oppose us and are not a threat. for us to be wantonly and killing people around the globe, enring into a war, there's no other question about that, without permission of the american people through this body is unconstitutional, it's wrong and we should support the kucinich amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for to minutes -- three minutes. the gentleman from nebraska.

mr. fortenberry: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from california, our ranking memb on the foreign affairs, r the time. madam speaker, this is a very tough call. a tough set of circumstances. there is much complexity here with the convergence of war and diplomacy and geopolitics and allied relations. what is clear, however, is that the president has not communicated effectively with the united states congress, nor has he sought this body's authorization for the undertaking in libya. les ve a brief history lesson here, though. some in this body called for unilateral action against libya just three months ago. that was appropriately resisted by this administration until other nations, particularly the british and the french, were willing to put up their own assets and give structure to a nato coalition. however, now u.s. actions in an important allied effort to save libyan civilians from eminent

slaughter have clearly moved beyond the scope of humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts. with that said an abrupt and an imminent cutoff of u.s. participation in libya causes numerous complications and would be highly disruptive. yet we should not creep, we must not creep toward opening up a third front in libya which is the root cause of this debate. the general framework for intervention without expressed congressional authorization has precedent and some parallels within the last 30 years. let's look at lebanon in 1982, panama in 1989, bosnia in 1995 and kosovo in 1999. all of these interventions had varioulevels of controversy, particularly the one in lebanon, but they were undertaken by presidents of the united states. the boehner resolution considered before this one gives the president a small window of

ti to better make his case. if the president cannot, congress can assert its authority and disapprove, raising principled questions about war powers is a laudable goal and i do want to commend the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, for his leadership in this important debate. it would not have happened without you. however, i think we should move forward very carefully. speaker boehner's resolution pushes the president for answers but stops short of requesting congressional authorization or abrupt withdrawal of u.s. participation in the libya mission. if this approach is unfaithful we can then -- unfruitful, we can then exercise further options. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i eld a minute and a half to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, who has been a driving force behind this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. capuano: thank youmadam speaker, and i thank the ntleman foyielding.

i'm prd to be one of the original co-sponsors of this resolution. but i want to ke -- i take no pleasure in this. i'm an early and ardent supporter of the president on most everything. this has nothing to do in my mind with the president or truthfully even with the action in libya. for me this is about the constitution. plain and simple. the constitution's clear, it's not even about the war powers act, i personally think the war powers act is probably unconstitutional. the constitution is clear on many things -- clear. on many things it is not. it is unequivocally clear on the declaration of war is the responsibility of congress. period. no gy area there. now, i know you can try to fudge it on what the definition of war is but when someone is shooting at someone else, that's war. if it's one person, 10 people or 10 million, that's war. for me that's what this is about. now, don't get me wrong. i would hesitate strongly, i doubt that i would support the action in libya, but that's not

why i co-sponsored this and i've had some people say, well, 15 days is unreasonable. well, ok, then if this passes they have 15 days to come back to us and ask us for more time. which i would be inclined to do. if that's necessary in a military basis. what this simply says is that congress has to stand up on our own two feet and take the actions that we took an oath to take which to uphold the constitution. now, i understand the people may see things differently and i respect people's opinions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield th gentleman another half minute. mr. capuano: i respect peoe that wouldiffer. but i cannot believe that anyone can honestly read the constitution on this matter in an unclear way. congress has the authority to declare war, period. that's why i'm here day. i'm not here to debate today whether we were right or wrong

to be in libya. that will come another day. maybe or maybe not. but i am here to say, uncomfortable as it is, unpleasant as it is, how difficult 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 h on reign 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 no force, would not actually rest 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 reqres 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 andtarts 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 anxtended 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 eaker. i'm pleased to yield to the rankinmember 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 ofilitary 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 waso 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 comftable with the extent of information they have beeniven 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, contributionof 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 attk 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.ilitary 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 gentlen 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 futureonstitutional transgressions. a mild rebe alone on the use of patience on a actually mandated war power is insufficient to defe 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 solution does not cure that. but the constitution doesn't say the president must come to congressnd 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 cognition. 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 soar 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: appreciate the gentlelady yielding. ladies and gentlemen, we are at a moment in time, the middle east is awakeng 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-ving people everywhe 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 a 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. >> john boehner is measure was passed by the house. representative to senate, which called for the removal of u.s. forces, was rejected by the house. 148-265. our coverage of the house continues when the returns untuned 13. -- june 13.

>> the limits of international law. your questions for author and professor eric posner,. . he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> prospective candidates jon huntsman and michelle bachman were among the speakers at the faith and freedom coalition. the group was founded and is chaired by ralph reed. other speakers included john boehner, paul ryan, haley barbour. we will show you their remarks next. , it's a beautiful day. [cheers and applause] >> hey, everybody, good morning!

[applause] how you doing? good. good to be with you today. listen, i want to share with you a story. it's an unpleasant story. for those of us who have served in congress for a while, we were there in 2008 when we had a financial crash. and then we watched a recession start. we saw millions of people, friends, families, constituents lose their jobs. we saw trillions of dollars of wealth just vanish because we had a great recession. con subsequently, usually the bigger the recession you have in this country, the bigger the recovery. where's the recovery? but i want to tell you something, when that 2008 financial crisis happened, it caught us all by surprise. we didn't see it coming. and so ugly crisis legislation emerged from that. i want to ask you a question.

what if your congressman, your senator, your president saw that financial crash coming, knew it was going to happen, knew basically when it was going to happen, why it was going to happen, but more importantly, what if your representative in congress, your president knew what needed to be done to prevent it from happening and had the time to do so but decided not to because it just wasn't good politics? what would you think of him? >> wouldn't like it. >> you wouldn't like him. [laughter] that's where we are right now. we have the most predictable, most preventable economic crisis in our history, and what are we doing? we're playing politics. we have a leadership deficit in washington right now. [applause] we have a debt crisis coming.

we know that government cannot keep spending must be we don't have. money we don't have. and yet we see what we are doing to our children and our grandchildren. we know without a shred of doubt we're giving them a lower standard of living, less prosperity, less opportunities. we're living at their expense right now. and we know doing it this way is hurting our economy today. it's costing us jobs now. it's telling entrepreneurs and businesses don't invest, don't take risks because gosh only knows what government's going to do to you next. and so we don't have a leadership deficit in the house, and i'll tell you why, because the house of representatives is taking this moment seriously. and it's really because america sent people like mr. mulvaney, like mr. ribble, sent up 87 freshman to come to congress who came not for career, but a cause, and the cause of liberty

in america and getting freedom back. [applause] i gotta tell you, having people like mick mulvaney and reed rib on the budget committee is a breath of fresh air. so in the house we put out a budget to get this situation under control. we do four things. number one, we cut spending. $6.2 trillion of spending. [applause] we just think it's this novel idea that we ought to get government to live within its means and that we should give our children a debt-free nation, and we literally put into place a plan that literally pays off our national debt. [applause] number two, like in the mid 1990s we had great success with welfare reform, but we only reformed one of the several welfare programs in the federal government. we need to finish reforming our welfare system. [applause] but we want to have a welfare

system that is geared not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting them back on their feet in the lives of self-sufficiency. that's what this country's about. [applause] if we go down this path or this tipping point of having more takers than makers in america, then we will become a european cradle to grey social well -- grave social welfare state. that is not the american ideal. third thing we do, medicare is going broke, it's going bankrupt. it has to be saved. and so we have this novel idea that if you've already retired or if you're about to retire, you're above 55 years old, you've already organized your life around this promise government made to you, and we think government should keep that promise. so we make sure that this system stays intact for those people, but in order to do that, you've got to change it and fix it for my generation, those of us 54 and below. and the way in which we prose

too that -- propose to do that is a system that says you get to choose among these benefits medicare offers you, and medicare subsidizes it. more of your poor, more of your sick, not as much if you're wealthy. doing this, saving it from if bankruptcy for the next generation, preserves the program for the current generation. [applause] there is an alternative. the alternative is bankruptcy. the alternative is the program collapses. the alternative is obamacare. you have to remember dirty little secret, president's new health care law takes a half a trillion from medicare to spend on obamacare. how many times have you ever told your congressman at a town hall meeting or talked around the coffee table or at the greasy spoon restaurant and said i wish they would stop raiding social security. well, guess what? they just started that with medicare now. and what's worse, they put a new

board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of price controlling and rationing medicare to current seniors. so they raid it, they ration it, and then they don't even try to save it. we save the program, we end the raid, and we stop the rationing. we think that's the better way to go to save the system. [applause] fourth thing we do is grow the economy. now, here's the difference. washington doesn't create jobs. the private sector creates jobs, entrepreneurs create jobs, people create jobs. and when you have so much government, so much government activism, so much government regulating and so much government spending, you don't know what's going to happen next. there is so much government-inspired uncertainty in our economy that it's putting a chilling effect on job creation. so pay off the debt, keep our

tax rates low and stable and predictable, stop picking winners and losers in washington for the regulatory system and get the system under control so people can flourish. here's what it all comes down to. the way in which we address this debt crisis, how we handle this going in will determine what kind of country we are coming out of it. and so let's just know that we are in this moment in america, it's a very precarious moment in america. i see it as a great opportunity in america. and it's a moment where we can decide, do we believe in those founding principles that made us so great, or are we going to put those aside and go with a different plan, a social democracy/european kind of a system? what's so unique about america is america's not just a country, it's not just a land mass, it's not maine to california, wisconsin to florida, it's an idea. and the idea of america is that our rights come from god and nature. they come before government.

[applause] it's the only country founded as such. and so our rights are not given to us from government, our rights are ours naturally given to us by god. and so knowing this, applying these principles -- liberty, freedom, self-determination, government by consent of the governed -- applying those principles to the problems of today renews america, keeps us exceptional. at the end of the day, the way in which we address these fundamental problems in the america will determine, a, are we going to keep ourselves as that opportunity society with a safety net, that society that is characterized by more prosperity, by upward mobility, by equal opportunity, or are we going to abandon that? are we going to go down this other path, the one we're on

right now where more and more people become dependent on the government for their livelihoods, where they are drained of their incentive and their will to make the most of their lives, and we become a government, a society where the government sees its job as equalizing the results of our lives, as pursuing equal outcomes versus equal opportunity? the difference is stark. the difference is we go into managed decline, into managed stagnation. we go into a society where the government has such a profoundly bigger role in our everyday lives, many managing our economy. in managing our economy. look, it's not a fixed pie. the world, the economy, america is not a fixed pie where the government has to simply redistribute the slices. we need to grow the pie. we need to grow opportunity. we need to have a system of prosperity where everybody has a chance of reaching their destiny and fulfilling their potential. and you know what? america gets this.

the people are way ahead of the political class up here in washington. they know this. [applause] and so while we have a leadership deficit on confronting these issues in the white house, and while we have the united states senate for a second year in a row that didn't bother to pass a budget, i want you to know that the people you sent to the house take this very seriously, and we've done this in the house. we're going to keep lead anything the house. and if we do our jobs right, we will give you that choice you deserve in 2012 so you can decide what kind of country you want to live in this country for the 21st century. thank you very much, and god bless you. have a great day. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> hi, everyone! thank you for coming. [cheers and applause] good to see you, good morning.

thank you for coming. [applaus i can tell this conference is off to a great start already! isn't it? oh, what a wonderful year this is going to be,and 2012 is even going to be better! [cheers and applause] we're looking forward to winning the triple crown, aren't we? holding on to theouse of representatives, getting a conservative senate for the first time in a long time and, nally, sending a cange of address form to 1600 pennsylvania avenue! [cheers and applause] because if we have anything to say about it, barack obama will be a one-term president! [ches and applause] well, it's a new day,nd there's new things that are coming our way, and i'm extremely grateful for all of you who areere this morning,

extremely grateful. i want to give you -- i want -- there's a lot of bad news tha's going on around the world, but there's a lot of good news that's going on around the world, too, and i want to talk to you about a few of some of those things. carol had mentioned to grow that when i was at the minnesota state senate that we had started a project -- not because we wanted to, but because we were calculate a abouting in -- acting in response to an action by the massachusetts judicial supreme court. does anyone remember the decision in 2003 that the court issued? they issued a decision that told the state legiature that the legislature had to pass a law in conformity with the will of the justices. does anyone remember what that decision was about? do you remember? it was about marriage. it had something to do about redefining marriage. i had heard that in minnesota and knew that that would come our way as well, and so i announced that i was going to introduce a constitutional

amendment that would allow the people of minnesota to vote on the laws that th live under, particularly the definition of marriage. whetherarriage would be between one man and one woman. and -- [applause] that's a good concept. people we, as you can imagine, this was the height of the controversy, and i was at the tip of the spear on that effort. and the reason why i bring this up is because i say to you, persevere. peevere and never despise small beginnings. because we were a few people at i had gotten together and tried to make this happen, and this bill that i introduced we began with, we were not able to get it out of the liberal-dominated senate that i was in. we tried, we tried again, we weren't able to succeed. but we didn't give up because we knew the people of minnesota, ultimately, wanted to be able to vote on this bill.

thirty different states have put this bill up, every time states have put this bill before the american people they have voted in their states to retain th traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. [applause] and, no, i am no longer in the minnesota state senate, i am privileged to be able to serve the people of the sixth district in the house of representatives. others took that torch, and they carried on. and just a week ago last saturday evening minnesota finally passed the constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. [applause] and so minnesota is the first state that has decided this

issue will be the ballot in 2012. the state of new hampshire, i understand, will be taking this issue up as well and other states. this is the time, and s i want to encourage all of you at home, if you d't have a similar amendment, consider this in your home stes. i believe this is the time to do it. so i just want to say thank you to those who have continued to carry that torch. [applause] we need to do this because how many of you know that the marriage, that marriage is under siege like no time in recent history? just recently in "usa today" and in other magazines, um, we got the census data out that said that married couples have dropped below half of all american households for the first time, according to the census bureau. it's a milestone in the our nation's history. do you know that back in 1950

78% of all households remitted a rried couple, and today we're at 48%. that has created a profound difference in america. this year my husband and i will be married 33 years. [applause] and you're clapping for the wrong personn our marriage. [laughter] it's my husband who deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. it does help, though, when you're married to a marriage and family therapist. i have to say -- [laughter] we do have an unfair advantage there. and i'm extremely grateful for this wonderful man. he's not only committed deeply to our marriage, but he's committed to our children. and we made a decision whe we first got married. one of those decisions was even though we didn't have a lot of money, we decided we would alwaysive on just one income. we wouldn't be dependent on both of our incomes. because we knew we both had

broken hearts for at-risk children. i don't know what it was, but god put that on our heart. we had broken hearts for at-risk kids. we knew somehow we wanted to reach out and be a part of a solution for them. along the way, god blessed us, we had five wonderful biological children. and then at a certain point the lord allowed us to bring 23 foster children into our home. and i'm happy to say all of our foster children successfully graduated from high school, they were launched into the world, and they're off in their various endeavors. [applause] and with each of our five children we began by home schooling our five children because we believed as parents we wanted to teach our children how to read before they run off to school. because if a child can read, they can be self-taught, and they can make it. and so we home schooled eh of our five biological children and

then got them off into the world as well. and now this sunday we will have graduation for our daughter from high school, this fall we'll send two off to college, and let me tell you, after 29 years of parenting, we're going to be done after this sunday. [laughter] anwe love these children, but it's sayonara! [applause] there is something to be said for an empty nest and moving on. [laughter] adolesnce does end in our family, so we're excited about it. but marriage is extremely important. children are extremely important. and to be highly valued. and that's one thing that i think in our society we have done fairly well, is place a high value on chdren. we need to do that for the benefit of the next generation, and ihink that's why the issue

of wife is so profound and so dear. when my husband and i met in college, we were 19 years of aim. we had seen -- age. we had seen a film series, it was called "how shall we then live?" dr. francis schafer said abortion was a water shed issue of our time, and my husband and i heard that, and it was a profound thought for both of us. the importance of that issue and the high value that we need to place on human rights and on human life. the founders didn the declaration of independence. they wrote in the declaration, thomas jefferson penned the words or that we areni endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that amon those rights are life. that's the first right. and the incredible thing about thistatement is that inalienable rights are ones that man cannot give.

he's incapable of giving them. government is incapable of giving inalienable rights. only a creator can in the wisdom of the founders. they recognized this natural law, this truth that was self-evident to all people, that only god could give life. and the other side of that is that not only can man not give that right, nor can government give it, the opposite side is that goverent is witut power or authority to take that right away. [applause] that's valuable. and i think this is one of the self-evident truths that rings a chord of recoition in the hearts of all men, that there is inalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. and i think that's why this has been such a tremendous controversy since the supreme court decision that was written by harry blackman in the early 1970s regarding this issue of life and when we will preserve life. also be encouraged, be encouraged on the marriage front, be encouraged on the life front. let me share this statistic with you because there's a poll that was done by quinnipiac university. voters opposed by 72% to 23% using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions. 72% of americans oppose the provision in obamacare to pay for taxpayer-funded abortions. 72% of the american people. [applause] that's why i am convinced that, ultimately, be of good cheer.

with will win this -- w will win this fight because we will repeal obamacare! [cheers and applause] it will happen! and i am committed, i am committed, i will not rest until we repeal obamacare! [cheers and applause] america will not rest until we repeal obamacare! [cheers and applause] take it to the bank, cash the check! it will be done! it will not stand! the american people will not stand! [cheers and applause] because know that you know that you know that you know the american people are with us on this issue. that's why the window of opportunity that we have in 2012 is so crucial.

carol schulsted who was standing here introducing me before has been working tirelessly in the minnesota legislature to prevent the state legislature from the early implementation of obamacare in our state. [applause] in all of your 50 states, i urge you faith and freedom activists to do he same. work in your states to prevent the early implementation of obamacare. this is the dirty deal that was dope with obamacare. some of you may know this, some of you may not. when obamacare was ven and we were told to vote on this bill, you can do a lexus nexus search, and you won't find this fact. hidden in that bill, tucked away in this bill supposedly in plain sight was 105,464,000,000 of prefunding of obamacare to implement it in the 50 states. this is like a lot of money.

$105,464,000,000. we spent, oh, about five, six weeks at the beginning of this year arguing over cutting $37 billion. out of the budget. you think maybe this went unnoticed? at the very last -- in fact, do you think maybe that's why speaker pelosi famously said we have to pass the bill to know at's in it? maybe that's why members of congress should read these bills before they vote on them? [cheers and applause] don't worry, faith and family, it's going to be just fine. we're going to repea this bill, we're going to get that money back. [cheers and applause] don't worry, it's going to be just fine. and recently this, this also, i think, has given rise to the steam that's behind the issue of defunding planned parenthood. [cheers and applause]

in a time when president obama is calling on the congress to give him authority to increase borrowing money that we don't have, so borrow -- raise the debt ceiling by borrowing another 2.4 trillion, and we're giving money to corrupt organizations like planned parenthood? that are committing crimes and enabling young, minor girls and covering up issues i don't even want to talk about it because it's so disgusting, but this organization has, by their own records, performed 324,008 abortions in 2008 and 09. and that's in addition to the trafficking of underage girls that has gone on under planned parenthood's nose. do you think maybe we could start here by defunding this organization? [cheers and applause] i think so too.

it coun't come soon enough. they're a billion dollar a year organization. they need to stand on their own. and here's another issue that we've all heard about, and it's come to our attention in the last couple of weeks. and that's israel. our president made a shocking display of betraying our greatest friend and ally, israel, when he said to israel you need to give up more land, you must give up more land, shrink to your '67 borders. as a matter of fact, cut your nation in two so you're separated from each other to indefensible borders d give that land away to the palestinians who, by the way, don't even recognize that israel exists or has a right to defend herself. america must do what all previous presidents have done since harry truman and stand with israel. i stand with israel! [cheers and applause]