resolution that gives carte blanche authorization to continue the war in libya after the fact. and i want to thank again, our ranking member, for allowing this debate and the chairman of the rules committee and mr. kucinich and mr. rooney, everyone for at least encouraging this debate to move forward. i guess we could say today, better late than never, but i certainly wish we had adhered to our constitutional responsibility before the military engagement began. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. . mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i reserve. -- mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have no more requests for time and i want to ask my colleague if he's prepared to close. mr. woodall: we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. slaughter: thank you. i urge a no vote on the rule. remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate we devoted 26 hours to it and 263 members, more than half the house of representatives, spoke. i agree with what has just been said about ms. lee, it's much too late. it comes at a very strange time, and it says this is a political move which i regret, because, as she pointed out, and those others who have been here before, voting to go to war is the most solemn experience that we face here. so let me urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker. i want to associate myself with my colleagues who say it's much too late. it is much too late. i wish we had that opportunity to have this conversation before hostilities began.

i'm new to this body, mr. speaker, and perhaps my colleagues knew hostilities were getting ready to begin. i did not. i heard about it on cnn. there was no consultation with congress before those hostilities began. that was the right time to have this debate. that time has passed, and for those who say delay, delay, delay, i tell you, it's already too late. we cannot delay any further. and i'm very pleased, mr. speaker, that the rules committee has made these two resolutions available because you have two very clear choices today, mr. speaker. as you know on the senate side there's the kerry-mccain resolution. this resolution that we have from mr. hastings today largely mirrors that resolution. if you believe in what's going on in libya is in the best interest of the united states, if you believe we have a national security interest in libya, if you believe that the congress should make clear that we are behind the president and what's going on in libya, you have that choice today in the

resolution offered by mr. hastings. if you believe that this is just another example, the war is going to escalate, and you're concerned about that escalation and you want to put yourself on the record as saying, no, no more. no more. you have your chance to do that today with the rooney resolution. no more. i hold here in my hand, mr. speaker, a copy of the constitution of the united states of america. again, ratified this week in 1788. article 1, section 8, the congress shall have the power to declare war. article 1, section 9, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. mr. speaker, it's easy to say that foreign policy is the

dominion of the president of the united states and it is. but the purse is the dominion of the u.s. house of representatives. i want to hearken back again of what the chairman of the rules committee said before, this should be a time of celebration, and, mr. speaker, when we have troops in harm's way it should be something that we are unified behind and believe in as a nation that we are ready to prosecute a war effort to the fullest extent and bring our men and women home victorious. but, mr. speaker, this is not a topic of unanimity. this is not a topic that we have found any sort of agreement on whatsoever in this body. in fact, this is a topic that we have been focused on and focused on and focused on trying to bring to conclusion in this house and this rule today, mr. speaker, gives us that opportunity. now, i want to make clear

there's a further step we could go. we could go a step further and say no fund should be used period and we return to this body, mr. speaker, i believe my colleague, mr. kucinich, and my colleague, mr. amash, will make that amendment to us and i will vote yes when that amendment comes down the pipe. but today we will have an opportunity to take a step in that direction. we have an opportunity to make our voice heard. are you with it or are you against it? do you support what's going on in libya or do you believe we're headed in the wrong direction as a nation? you have that opportunity today but only, mr. speaker, if you vote yes for this rule to make these two measures in order. i urge a strong yes vote. with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no.

ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 167 and the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the to us will be in order. -- the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: if members can please clear the well and remove their conversations from the floor. the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: members will remove their conversations from the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you,

mr. speaker. pursuant to house resolution 328, i call up the joint resolution, h.j.res. 68, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 68, joint resolution authorizing the limited use of the united states armed forces in support of the nato mission in libya. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i rise to make a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman will state his point. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i understand the gravity of the legislation before us but i rise to make a point of order that this bill violates clause 11 of rule 21. it states it shall not be in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until it has been available to members for 72 hours.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 328, all points of order against consideration are waived. mr. jackson: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. can the chair tell the house when h.r. 2278 and h.j.res. 68 were made available to members? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a further parliamentary inquiry. mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the house has said -- the speaker has said he will not bring a bill to the floor that has not been made available for 72 hours. have these bills been available for 72 hours, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, once again, has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. mr. jackson: is the majority waiving the position of the speaker, waiving the rules as it relates to the legislation before us? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is engaging in debate and not stating a parliamentary inquiry. does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry? mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry, mr.

speaker. the fact of the matter this bill has not been made available for 72 hours and even three calendar days. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is out of order. pursuant to house resolution 328, the joint resolution is considered as read. the joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally and controlled by the chairman and reclaiming my time of the committee on foreign affairs and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed forces. the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and the gentleman from california, mr. berman, each shall control 20 minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, shall each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous

materials on h.j.res. 68. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i do not support a complete u.s. withdrawal from nato's operation unified protector. i believe that it is necessary for u.s. armed forces to remain engaged in a limited capacity. however, i cannot support an authorization which constitutes our current level of engagement for an entire year. this is what is proposed in h.j.res. 68 offered by my friend from florida, mr. hastings, and i therefore must rise in opposition to his

resolution. this resolution not only authorizes u.s. military engagement in libya, far beyond even the 90-day nato extension, but it justifies u.s. military engagement in libya as undertaken to enforce a united nations security council resolution and at the request of the transitional national council the gulf -- national council, the gulf council and the arab league. where is the united nations in this equation? if an authorization resolution had been put forward in february i might have been able to support it. i understand the mission, but in the intervening period, conditions have changed significantly on the ground in libya within nato, with our nato partners and here in the u.s. decisive action with congressional authorization at

the outset might have solved this problem quickly. but now we have drifted into an apparently open-ended commitment with goals that remain only vaguely defined, and that is at the heart of the problem, mr. speaker. the president asserted, quote, these strikes will be limited in their nature, duration and scope, end quote. well, it is now day 97. 97 of our involvement of u.s. armed forces in hostilities regarding libya, yet, gaddafi still clings to power and the opposition appears to be no closer to a decisive victory. command for the military operation has been transferred to nato. yet, the constrained role the president has said is being played by u.s. forces in libya still includes nearly one quarter of the total planes flown in libya, suppression of

enemy defense through strikes, strikes by unmanned predators on gaddafi targets, nearly 70% of the mission's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and over 75% of all airline -- aerial refueling. yet, the president has yet to explain just what the interests are at staveg and what outcomes he's hoping to achieve. the resolution offered by our speaker, speaker boehner, and adopted by this chamber on june 3 posed specific questions that required straight answers. instead, we received a letter and accompanying documents from secretary of state for legislative affairs and secretary of defense for legislative affairs which stated that u.s. action in libya were, and i quote, taken in response to direct appeals from the libyan people and

acting with a mandate from the united nations, end quote. let me repeat, quote, a mandate from the united nations, end quote. the administration proceeded to justify its current policy by asserting that u.s. military operations in libya do not constitute hostilities. this argument is so incredulous that even the attorneys in the office of legal counsel do not agree. therefore, i am not optimistic that the reporting provisions in the resolution we are considering today which calls for, quote, a full and updated explanation of the president's legal and constitutional rationalse for conducting military operation -- rationales for conducting military operation in libya will not be for congressional prerogatives. again, i must underscore i do not support a complete withdrawal from our commitments concerning libya.

that would be dangerous. that would be ill-advised. a complete withdrawal of all u.s. military assets from the libya operations would undermine our intelligence efforts and our foreign policy goals and would all but assure a victory for gaddafi. it can lead to greater instability, which could affect nato operations in iraq and afghanistan, and a critical stage of transition. there is also proliferation concerns at stake, particularly as an increasing number of weapons have moved into the region and reportedly fallen into the hands of extremist organizations, including al qaeda and the islamic magram. the gaddafi regime is an unpredictable regime which has chemical weapons, including mustard and possible serum gas. while a complete withdrawal is unacceptable, the resolution before us is unacceptable. it ratifies that all of the president has done and it would

grant him the blessings of congress to continue on its present course. the resolution before us would enable mission -- rather than u.s. engagement. i must, therefore, oppose this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the resolution, and i yield two minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, howard. it's hard time that congress asserts its authority and engages proactively with the administration on this los serious question of war. i just kind of wonder where my colleagues have been all these years that we have had presidents in war. it will be interesting to see a matchup of their votes with this one. mr. speaker, the underlying legislation authorizes the

limited use of united states' forces in support of the nato mission in libya. this legislation is a bipartisan effort to prevent the kind of open-ended, indefinite military commitment we have elsewhere in the world. register that as afghanistan and iraq. this resolution is the companion to forward-leaning senate legislation introduced by senators kerry, mccain and cardin and durbin. immediately after they introduced the legislation in the senate, i brought it to the house so we can make progress on this very important debate before us. if i had my way, and i don't, mr. chairman, we wouldn't be in libya at all. but i don't have my way, and here we are and the solution now is going to be to cut off funding and suddenly walk out. we have a responsibility to our allies. as long as we are continuing to supply logistics, materials and

critical intelligence and operational capabilities and no boots are on the ground, we must support our allies who are carrying out the direct combat operations. we must stand with nato. again, mr. speaker, if i had my way, and i don't, there are revisions to this resolution that i think congress ought to consider. i maintained that a better date to end the authorization would be in september and certainly no later than december. the one-year authorization in this one limits the president's ability to engage our armed forces indefinitely so that we don't find ourselves neck deep in another war. at the same time this authorization prohibits the use of ground forces and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. berman: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. hastings: and i won't use all of that. at the same time, this authorization prohibit the use of ground forces and requires

the president to continually report to congress. i would rather us use some of libya's frozen assets so that we could have them pay for the mischief they began. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, dr. paul, a member of our committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, this is a resolution that endorses the policies that have been going on for four months. not only is the congress basically been pretty strong in opposition of what's been going on, the american people are even more so. so what this resolution does, it endorses exactly what has been going on, another unconstitutional war, involvement and justification under nato, the united nations, doing it secretly.

there's an attempt to restrain the funding of this effort over here over in libya, but why and how can we restrain it because we never authorized it? restrain unauthorized funds? the president just goes and does it. . the challenge on the congress looking at the unitary president. the unitary president has been around for quite a few years and that means presidents do what he they want. the congress just acknowledges it. so that is what we are doing. this is what this resolution does. it acknowledges and gives the authority to the president to pursue what he has been doing. so obviously h.j.res. 68 for me is a very, very strong no because the last thing we need to do is be giving explicit support and authorization for the very policies that so many people now think are taken ill-advisedly. it says this resolution also

says you don't send any ground troops. that is fine. no ground troops. but in this day and age war can go on for a long time without the ground troops, and just think it happened in -- to a degree in bosnia. but today -- it didn't exempt to such things as show the forces, the c.i.a., the c.i.a.'s been in libya. i'm sure they will be as it's in many, many hundreds of other countries. contractors, when we can't send in troops we send in contractors. we have as many contractors in afghanistan as we do in the military. so a couple thousand troops out of afghanistan and not to change the contractors, nothing ever changes. but this whole idea of legalizing this effort, to legalize the bombing, at least give the authority to the president to continue this is foolhardy. how many more wars can we withstand? what mum is this?

this is number five and today in the paper is number six coming? how long will it be before we are in syria? go into syria tomorrow and in 90 days we'll start talking about syria again. instead we in congress have allowed us to give up the responsibilities. because responsibility of going to war should have been and still remains actually mandated that the congress makes these decisions. the president is not supposed to get us engaged in anybody and say whatever you need, we'll endorse it, we'll do t but we have another resolution coming up shortly and unfortunately -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. paul: i am convinced the next resolution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. paul: unfortunately, i think the next resolution, h.r. 2278, doesn't do much differently because it has too many exemptions. it says denies funding and it has too many exceptions and it allows the very things the president is doing.

both resolutions have deep shortcomings. both resolutions should be defeated if you are opposed to this war in libya. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the president's response to libya. a week after it started, i received a phone call from a professor at the university of washington who had left, a very distinguished professor, and was back in libya. he is now the finance minister. he said to me, please give us air cover. if we can protect us from the air, we can take care of it ourselves on the ground. and as i listened to him i thought of an experience i had with president clinton.

i flew to africa and met with people who had been part of the massacre, the maimed, and then i saw the president go into the hangar and speak to 500 rawandans and apologize for not having responded to the rawandan massacre at the first day. this was a situation where the libyans were asking for it. it was one where the arab league was asking for it. this is not something that was cooked up in the white house and created and sent out. this was done in response to people on the ground. my belief is that these kinds of situations require the president to act decisively and he did, and i support him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes

to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, vice chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on oversight and investigation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the chair lady yielding me time on this issue. mr. speaker, going to war is a big deal. that's why our forefathers put in the constitution that when america is to go to war, it is congress that is to lead that charge. it is congress to authorize america going to war. and that's been the law in the constitution since it was written. then came the war powers resolution. and congress decided that it would give a little of that constitutional authority to the president for a period of days until he justified his action before congress. we can argue whether war powers resolution is constitutional or not, but any event congress has

not led america to war in libya. the president has. the president made that decision. and as james madison, the author of the constitution, said to a letter to thomas jefferson, i paraphrase, it has been the history of peoples that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war. and that's why our constitution prevented kings and dictators and even presidents from leading this country to war. it must be authorized by congress. but now we find ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no on this resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national security

interest of the united states to be in libya. so why are we there? we are there because we don't like omar gaddafi. there are a lot of bad guys in the world and if we start picking them off one at a time we'll be at war with most of the world. because most of the world is led by rogue dictators or bad guys. we have no business being in libya. we have no business justifying this war on the house floor. it is congress' responsibility to defund any further action in libya. and that is what we should do. it's unfortunate we don't have that up or down vote. i wish we could vote up or down today on that issue and let the house decide if we should be at war in libya. $700 million has already been spent in the war in libya. it's hard to figure out where that money came from. i get different answers from different people about where the president got that money. but maybe we should spend that $700 million in the united states building america rather

than blowing up libya. i think that would be a better use of funds. we need to take care of america. we shouldn't be involved in somebody else's civil war in libya. who are the rebels? we are not sure who they are either. they may be extremists, they may be patriots, they may be a democratic philosophy. we have no idea. i'd ask for another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen: the gentleman has an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. poe: we don't know who the rebels are. they may be worse than omar gaddafi, isn't that a lovely situation, if they take control. we replace an oppressive regime with an extremist radical regime. that's all because we are in a war that was unauthorized by this congress, cut off all funds, vote against this resolution. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a gentleman of the opposite view of this issue

than i have, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: what? we don't have enough wars going on? the war in iraq, war in afghanistan. we need one more war. we have to wage war against another nation which did not attack us? we have to wage war against another nation which does not represent an actual or imminent threat to the united states? mr. speaker, i have to tell you i have been all over this country and i haven't had a single person come up to me to tell me, you know, dennis, what america needs is another war. the last thing we need is to be voting to go to war. there are plenty of reasons to oppose the war in libya. it's unconstitutional. article 1, section 8 has given

the congress the power to declare war. it's illegal. the war powers resolution was passed over presidential veto to allow the president latitude where there is an imminent threat to the u.s. or retain the constitutional duty of congress, even the president's top legal advisors at the pentagon and department of justice determines that the war powers resolution applies to the war in libya. another reason is americans don't want this war. a poll taken at the beginning of the month by cbs found that six in 10 americans do not think the united states should be involved in conflict with libya. just 30% of americans in that poll thought the united states was doing the right thing by taking part in the current military conflict. a majority of republicans, democrats, and independents alike think the u.s. should not be involved in libya. next, this war is a distraction. our flailing economy demands the

full attention of congress and the president. the american people have little patience for less, especially for war of choice. the cost of the war, mr. speaker, we spent $750 million so far. if we keep going on it will cost billions. we have to end this war. vote against this authorization. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. miss ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, a member of the committee on energy and commerce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. miss kinzinger: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i stand today in support of this resolution. the world is watching our actions today. the world is asking what are we going to do? we talk all the time about allowing europe to take the lead in certain areas. allowing natea -- nato to take the lead and they have done that. now will we today pull the rug out from under them simply because we have a dispute between the legislative and the executive branch?

i think the president should have come to this chamber, too, but he didn't. but the wrong thing to do is to pull funding and the right thing to do is to give him the authorization to go into libya. a slaughter almost occurred and we were able to stop it by our presence there. the house -- the vote we take in the house today will have implications far beyond our shores and far into the future. finally i'm reminded of a quote by george washington which states, liberty when it begins to take root is a plant of rapid growth. i support this resolution and would urge all my colleagues to do the same. in doing so we will be supporting the planting of freedom and liberty in the middle east. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. whereman -- mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the ranking member of the house appropriations committee, the gentleman from washington, mr.

dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. dicks: i strongly support the hastings amendment. 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 his powers as commander in chief. u.s. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations 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 inspired by arab spring was to use force against civilians in opposition forces and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry in the u.n. action. in march, the president clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this military action. while the direct u.s. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, u.s. forces remain engaged in the nato operation and in this chamber today we are considering both the resolution

authorizing the continued use of limited u.s. involvement in this effort or an immediate withdrawal from it. while i believe it would have been more appropriate for the president under the terms of the war powers act to come to congress earlier, i believe the language offered by hastings of florida similar to the language introduced in the other body by senators mccain and kerry, is the appropriate course of action at this time. the language preserves the understanding between the administration and congress that u.s. ground forces are not appropriate at this time and were not asked for by the rebels. the strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by mr. rooney of florida would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this action would be unwise. and that it would materially harm our relationship with nato allies. . when i hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the house chamber speaking in favor of abandoning the cause, i'm reminded of ronald reagan who attacked libya with airpower and called gaddafi the mad dog of the middle east. and i yield back the remaining of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. you reserve? the gentleman from california. ms. ros-lehtinen: continue to reserve. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: we should learn from the past. there are indeed times when american national interests should overtake political or partisan political interests. i remember the debate on kosovo 12 years ago. congress refused to authorize american action by a split vote. that was a tragic mistake. house republican leadership opposed that resolution. 187 noes against 31 yeses. i believe it was clear then

that republicans would not have opposed the kosovo resolution, at least in those numbers, if george bush had been president. today there are echoes from kosovo on this libyan resolution. the republicans should not make the same mistake again. we should join together to support the hastings resolution that's consistent with the war powers act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm going to yield -- mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for a minute and a half.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the hastings resolution. i think it's important to remember that u.s. military force is a very awesome thing and should only be planned parenthood in very select circumstances -- should only be used in very select circumstances. we have used that in an improper way for too long in afghanistan. when people are being slaughtered by dictators around the world where massive loss of lives are at stake. i think it's important for the united states to step up and protect those people. yes, we have business in libya. we have a business of protecting mass murder from happening -- stopping mass murder from happening all around the world. we need to stop the destabilization of regions like africa. we have a business in making sure that the peaceful resolutions in egypt and in tunisia are not undermined. we have business of making sure that dictators, like ali salah

in yemen and the one in syria are not embolden and the signal does not go to them that they can continue to wipe out their population and nobody cares. i believe if i was in this congress when rwanda or serb or darfur were helping, i think the people needed protection and the most powerful nation in the world should stand by while innocent children and women are being mowed down. and i hope today that colleagues will in -- join in that and i think it's the right thing to do. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlelady from florida has six minutes remaining. mr. berman: ok. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to -- automatic' pleased to yield --

i'm pleased to yield 90 second to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished speaker and to the distinguished members that are on this floor. what a heck of a position to be in, and let me make it very clear this is a set of circumstances that frames itself around the constitution, the war powers resolution that indicates that congress must be consulted. but i am in the middle of my actions that took place months ago or many weeks ago as the crisis and the murderous acts of colonel gaddafi began to seize his people and we went to the libyan embassy to ask for colonel gaddafi to step down and we then joined with the

then ambassador in his courageous acts. colonel gaddafi is known to oppress his people, deny freedom of press and speech as well as association to train dictators in oppression and intelligence and the murderous acts still go on. but it is a crisis when we have an administration, unfortunately, that is not seem fit to undertake the consultation that is necessary. yet, i believe that we should finish the task, and it is different from iraq and it is different from afghanistan. we have a time certain, and as well we have the arab league that has asked us to stand with them against the oppression of one of its members. this is a door opener to say to the people that we have asked to be with us, to go against terrorist acts to stand for democracy. so this is a devastating position to put the members of congress in, but we must do our

duty today, and i believe that it is good to say that the hastings amendment is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i prefer six month, and i hope there is an opportunity to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker and members, apparently the house has debated for more than almost 40 years now the war powers agreement or war powers law. what we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that and put it into position. there are four reasons. first, there is a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we

went into this in the first place. the united nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat. secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the united nations, by nato, by the arab league and the most unusual situation asking for support of the european and the united states in an arab country. finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. the resolution does that. it provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time, and, therefore, it is in order and it appropriately puts the congress, both houses, if it passes the senate, in support of the operation thereby fulfilling the war powers act. i'd ask for an aye vote on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased and honored to yield three minutes to the

gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, subcommittee on africa, global and human rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding and thank her for her leadership on human rights issues. let me just say, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.j.res. 68. you know, when the u.s. intervention in libya began last march i raised and i was among many several still unanswered questions about our involvement. they included questions about the identity and the aims of the rebels, the varying presidential statements that seemed to shift like the wind, the level of u.s. involvement, the possibility of gaddafi retaliating against american interests outside libya and whether u.s. ground troops may be requested at some point, though the resolution seems to clearly say that that would not be authorized by congress. in the course in the debate about the constitutionality and the viability of the war powers resolution, these questions have remained unanswered.

the president has refused to seek congressional approval of his action or even to provide a full explanation of his decisions. and the nato campaign continues, new questions arisen of new participation of what nato's involvement in libya. let me say a statement was made a moment ago about kosovo and somehow the republican opposition to kosovo was political. i remember because i was very involved in the balkan situation. i visited there many times. visited with any lohse vick, the dick -- with miloshivic, in croatia, to the attackers coming into serbia. so frankly the statement that was made earlier i think it did a disservice to those that were not supportive of the kosovo operation. there was no man for the kosovo albanian. if members may remember, that country was literally, literally pushed out into

macedonia and elsewhere. especially macedonia, because there was no plan when any lohse vitch sent in the ground troops and killed thousands of people. the revision this was somehow a political calculation falls very, very far from the truth. i actually held hearings during it and stated my opposition based on principle as did other members. i would hope there would not be that lookback that does a disservice to republican opposition. who exactly are we backing in libya? what is the justification on international law? it is therefore directing both u.s. foreign governmental assets to a rebel entity that is not democratically elected and therefore not necessarily representative of the people of that country. we don't know. in addition, a senior nato official told cnn on june 9 that gaddafi was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign. even though it was expressed as a nato position, are we now to

understand that the obama administration is sanctioning the killing of foreign leaders, again, pursuant to what international criteria or legal justification? mr. speaker, again, i call on my colleagues to vote down this resolution that is offered in h.j.res. 68. and i yield back to the distinguished the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from new york, a member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. speaker. today i say that we have an opportunity. the camera of history is rolling. it's watching what we do today. we can authorize the president to continue the limited use of the united states' services working in conjunction with nato today. today, we can show that we're

united with our allies. think about what history will have 50 years from now. we have an individual who was going to massacre his individuals, and by us stepping in, working in conjunction with our nato allies, we are saving thousands of lives. what would have taken place? historically if we allowed the annihilation of the libyan people? let's stick together on this. let's look at how this -- how we're together. from its inception this has been an international initiative to enforce u.n. resolution 1973 and the response of the request of libya's transitional national council, the gulf cooperation council and the arab league. president obama deployed u.s. assets early, said he will continue just what we have our special asset and then have no troops on the ground. it is transitional government. let's work together. let's pass this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentleman has expired. does the gentleman from california -- mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute of time to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, we were asked to come into libya by the libyans, by the arab league, by the gulf cooperation council, by the european union and by the united nations security council. today we are standing with those who believe in freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law. but also today as we debate this issue, muammar gaddafi's forces continue their merciful assault on combatants. in cities throughout central libya. the libyan transitional national council, which needs our support, is grossly short of weaponry, money, training, but they are the boots on the

ground fighting -- dying to dislodge gaddafi who is a bad guy. we need to be on the other side, not giving a comfort to gaddafi so that he can thank us for the resolution and this vote. we need to make clear, we don't support him. we do support people who are fighting for the same values that detype our country. 30 years ago people were killed just this week. the cutoff of operation and funding for the nato operation is to aside with gaddafi against the forces who are fighting for those values which define us. you know, the idea we haven't been -- this hasn't been explained sufficiently by the president, we have minds of our own. we know the facts. we can make a judgment, the right judgment is to side with the president and to continue this until america shows that it's true to its own values and principles. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california.

mr. berman: could you provide us the amount of time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has five minutes remaining. the gentlelady from florida has three minutes remaining. mr. berman: i yield a minute to the gentleman from vermont. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. there are two issues before congress. one is the reassertion of its responsibility under article 1 in the war powers act. number two is a decision on the limited use of force for humanitarian mission in libya. the hastings resolution accomplishes both. it reasserts our authority under article 1 and the war powers act. number two, it says, yes, we do support limited intervention with a role for the u.s. in saving lives in libya. that mission is necessary to avert a humanitarian disaster. two, the mission has broad international support, including

from the arab league. three, the u.s. role is limited in scope. no boots on the ground. and, finally, we are by acting asserting our responsibility under the war powers act in our -- and our responsibility under article 1. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time? the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, 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: sir, i reserve the right to close, mr. speaker. so i will hold until the -- until they're done and then i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. bedroom interim is the gentlelady saying she has no other -- interim interim is the gentlelady saying she has no other -- mr. berman: is the gentlelady saying she has no other speakers? we have members who want to speak who are not yet on the floor.

ms. ros-lehtinen: so sorry but -- not my problem. mr. berman: on whose time is this dialogue? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california seek time? mr. berman: i think in this case i will yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. for four minutes. mr. berman: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: mr. speaker, we're 90 days into this operation and the majority is bringing up this

resolution in order to embarrass the white house. let's just call it for what it is. they know it will fail. they want to continue to play games with u.s. national security. let's be honest about what's happening here. the republican leadership allowed this resolution to come to the floor for one reason and one reason only, they know it will fail and they think its defeat will be a political defeat for the white house. if that type of trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it. mr. speaker, i think our commitments to nato and -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentlelady from florida reserves her time. does the gentleman from california seek time? ms. ros-lehtinen: there is additional time if i could tell my good friend. if the gentleman would yield, there is additional time on this resolution immediately following ours with armed services. so if there are any folks who come in later, perhaps they could speak during that time. mr. berman: in that case -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: all right. so i yield myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i think our commitments to nato and the humanitarian crisis that created the nato operation in libya are too important to be exploited for cynical political purposes. in my view the perfect authorization would have been a six-month authorization for a limited purpose with a

limitation on that authorization with respect to a position the house has stood for the entire time, as has the president and that is no boots on the ground. but the republicans didn't give this side the choice of the resolution for authorization, they told us what the resolution for authorization would be and that's a very unfortunate kind of a situation. so we will go through this process and perhaps at the end of the day, after this resolution fails, we will get another letter to the house of representatives, sent to the speaker, thanking us from colonel gaddafi for once again demonstrating that we want to send a message that he is going to prevail in this conflict. and when that happens what do we think the dictator of syria is going to think?

faced with a choice of change or quitting he will hear the message, the way to survive, the way to hold on for power is for him to continue to kill his own people without the rest of the world doing anything. there are critical alliances at stake, there are critical interests at stake, the national security question is far beyond simply what is going to happen in libya but in its neighbors, egypt and to you initialia, throughout the middle east -- tunisia, throughout the middle east and throughout the entire world, the message of trying to say that we're going to pull the plug on this particular operation and we could spend time talking about the way the administration has handled it but right now we have a choice, to pull the plug on this baby or to let it play out in a limited and responsible fashion to achieve our goals and send a

message that the civilized world is not going to stand for this kind of mr. barrow:ity and brutality. i urge -- kind of brutality and and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. to wrap up on our side, i'm proud and pleased to yield the remaining time, three minutes, to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, a member of both the committees on foreign affairs and armed services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffin: thank you. i rise in opposition to house joint resolution 68 which authorizes the president to continue military operations in libya. i appreciate all the policy arguments that i have heard here today, but the question for me is, is it illegal or not? if it's a question of law, then all of the arguments about making this group mad or not

being a good ally, etc., those are very persuasive, but those are not legal arguments. those don't change whether the actions in libya are constitutional or legal. those are policy arguments. the president continues to be in violation of the war powers resolution which requires congressional approval for military action within 60 days of the initial use of our armed forces. that deadline expired long ago. the president continues to involve the u.s. military in this illegal conflict and has continually ignored requests to gain congressional approval. what's so hard, mr. president, about coming to the house and consulting with the congress? what's so hard about that? the other presidents who may have their doubts about the constitutionality of the war powers resolution have still gone through the process to

respect the people that are represented by this body. reportedly the president ignored advice from his top lawyers at the pentagon and the justice department who said that he no longer had the legal authority to continue military action without congressional authorization. furthermore, this is not a legal argument but i think it's relevant, we're broke. the price tag of the military action in libya has already cost the u.s. government over $750 million. this resolution would authorize the president to continue military action in libya for up to a year. that could result in billions of dollars of funding by the american taxpayer that we just can't afford. we cannot spend precious taxpayer funds to support this military action while the president flouts the law and constitution. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the chair will remind the members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentlelady from -- ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i rise

in opposition to the bill and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill and yield myself such time as i may consume. the president's initial justification for our military intervention in libya was that it was necessary to prevent the massacre of libyan civilians by government forces in ben gazzy and that this would be strictly a humanitarian mission. as i noted back in march, deploying american warriors to protect civilians from a brutal dictater is a noble cause. yet i also express my reservations at the time because i feared that the mission could result in a protracted stalemate. although the president promised the american people that our involvement would be limited, a matter of weeks, not months, we find ourselves past the three-month mark with no end in sight. this bill would authorize operations for up to a year. we're currently engaged in a war that is vital to our national

security. in afghanistan we're fighting extremists who sheltered the terrorist organization that killed 3,000 americans on september 11, and would again provide them with a sanctuary if given the chance. we're in the process of consolidating our victory in iraq and still have 50,000 troops there in harm's way. indeed a clear strategic vision is required to make any military intervention successful. since this operation began, the connection between strategic ends and operational means has been lacking. consequently unless the nato mission departs from its initial mandate, it appears that our only recourse is to hold that gaddafi will voluntarily leave his country. i cannot support a long-term commitment of u.s. forces to hostilities when success is based on hope. furthermore, the president failed to seek congressional

authorization for this operation on the flimsiest of legal rationale. it's not appropriate for this body to cover his laps with a blanket altogether zsh lapse with a blanket authorization. i therefore -- lapse with a blanket authorization. i therefore encourage my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. i rise in support of this resolution. this is congress exercising its authority as is appropriate. mr. smith: and i agree with the people who say that congress should do this and i just wish we would understand that congress has a certain responsibility in that regard. yes, the president should have asked us but it's been over three months and this house has chosen not to act until now. i think it's appropriate that we are, i think we should authorize this mission in libya and strongly support that mission. like most americans, when this issue first came up, when the people in libya started rising up against their oppressive dictator, i was very reluctant about the idea of u.s. military

involvement, as i think we always should be. i think in the past we have been too overanxious to use the u.s. military in places where it was not a good fit. we need to think carefully about this. and in every instance we need to strike a balance. on the one hand, what is the positive impact that our involvement could have? and on the other hand, what are the risks of that involvement? and i think there was a unique set of circumstances in libya that made this make sense. first of all, our involvement could have a very positive impact. we had international support, the u.n., nato, the arab league, everybody in the world wanted gaddafi to be stopped from slaughtering the civilians who were rightfully standing up and asking for the basic rights that we take for granted in this country. and in addition to that our military, our military budget is roughly equivalent to the entire rest of the world's combined. that gives us a unique set of capabilities. that set of capabilities was critical to stopping gaddafi from crushing, again, the

legitimate democratic aspirations of the libyan people. if we had not acted they would be crushed, many more civilians would be dead and gaddafi would be back in power. we cannot walk away from that responsibility and say, yes, we don't like gaddafi, we wish the people there would do well, we simple low don't want to support the action that is necessary to give them that opportunity. in this case i think the mission did make sense for that reason. the united states is in a position to make a difference and stand up for people who were asking for legitimate rights. the broader question is, what does that have to do with the united states? that may be true but true in a lot of countries. the reason this is so important is because of the broader movement that's going on, the so-called arab spring. people in muslim countries rising up, demanding representative rights. that has an incredible impact on us. the greatest threat we face right now is from al qaeda and their ideology. that ideology arose in part because of a whole bunch of

repressive governments across the muslim world that weren't providing for their people. a number of oppressive governments, by the way, which the united states in the past has supported. we have the opportunity to do the opposite, to stand up for muslim people. let me tell you in the history of this country i don't think we've ever gotten as much positive press in the muslim tv stations and muslim media as we got for standing up to gaddafi. this has been enormously helpful to us in that broader ideological effort. we have national security interests for standing up. now as a house i don't want to stand up and say we are going to back down from that commitment that we made. make no mistake about it, if we defeat this resolution and pass the rooney resolution, we will stop the mission in libya and empower muammar gadoofy, something i know nobody -- gaddafi, something i know nobody wants to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the

gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman from -- i thank the gentleman for yielding. i heard a number of people say, well, the constitution does give the president latitude, but during the nixon administration, congress passed the war powers act. and then when the president vetoed it, congress overrode his veto, and so the war powers act became law. now, whether or not you believe it's constitutional, it has never been tested in the courts. and so it's the law. and the law says, as well as the constitution -- at least this is what most people who looked at the constitution believes is what it stands for -- the constitution and the war

powers act says the president cannot do what he did without the support and approval of congress. now, he's gotten us into the war in libya, and it is in effect our war. people say, well, no, it's nato. well, we are providing over 8,000 of the military personnel on the ships and in the air. the majority flights taking place where they are doing the bombing are done by our airmen and our aircraft. over 90% of the missiles that are being used at over $1 million per copy are american missiles. and this is going to cost billions of dollars. if this were to pass and we were to stay there for over a year, you could count on it costing $2 billion or $3 billion. now my colleague from arkansas a few moments ago talked about us being broke. the american people know if congress doesn't we're $1.4

trillion, $1.5 trillion short this year and we're $14 trillion in debt. we're printing money that our kids are going to have to deal with because they are going to have to pay for the debt down the road. some of us will pay for it if we live long enough. certainly our kids will have to pay for the debt. so we're adding to the debt by going into a war we shouldn't be in and without the approval of the congress in accordance with the war powers act of the constitution. now, my big concern is -- and i'm going to talk on the other bill that's coming up later on -- my big concern is not just libya. my big concern is this president, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us into syria. there's humanitarian problems in syria right now, and the reason they went into libya they said was because of the humanitarian problems. he talked to the french, the english, the nato, united nations and the arab league for

about two weeks before we went into libya, but he didn't have time to talk to the congress who appropriates the money and authorizes this stuff. he's the commander in chief once we go to war, but he needs the authority from congress to go into it and he didn't do it. so there are a lot of wars of opportunity. the president could go into syria. key go to the ivory coast. may i have one more minute? mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: there are a lot of places to go to war if we choose to do it. there are humanitarian problems around the war, but unless it's a threat to the united states or an attack to the united states, the president does not have the authority to do what he did without the support and approval of congress. president bush came to congress before he went into iraq. president bush came to congress before he went into afghanistan. and that's as it should be. and this president should not overstep his boundaries. and what i wish we would do

which would exceed the legislation we're going to be talking about today is to pass legislation to cut off all funds for libya. now -- i know it would not pass the senate. it would send a signal to the president and the white house that we won't allow him to go into war without the american people and without the approval of congress. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the previous speaker deludes himself and he's my friend, if he thinks the message we send today goes only to the president. the message will go to all over the world. the message will go to muammar gaddafi. the message will go to our nato allies. the message will go to every nation of the world that america does not keep faith

with his allies. america must lead. we must not equivocate. such a course would encourage the enemies of peace, the bullies of the world, people around the world look to our country's strength in their struggle for democracy and basic human rights. as it happens, i said that in 1999 when clinton sent troops to stop the genocide in bosnia and he did so, and the authorization lost on this floor shamefully 213-213. one of the darkest days i have served in this institution. let us not repeat that mistake. let us not repeat that message to our nato allies, to our european allies, to all the world that america cannot be counted on. at the same time congress was

voting to undermine their mission as they flew to kosovo. in recent months people across the middle east have bravely stood to demand that their government respect their fundamental rights. i have stood with the gentleman from indiana on behalf of human rights around the world. the libyan people who have been subject to the dictatorship of muammar gaddafi has more blood on his hands of american bloods on his hands than any other person than osama bin laden in the last three decades. we're among those who insisted that enough was enough. gaddafi responded by unleashing widespread violence and threatening countless lives, publicly promising to go door to door and kill those who stood against him. in response to this threat against gaddafi against those civilian people, the european union, the arab league, united nations security council and a

unanimous nato called for action to protect libyan civilians. the united states is participating in this action both in order to prevent brutal attacks against civilians and in order to stand by our allies. president obama has made clear from the beginning that our allies needed to take the leading role in libya. we can't do it all, but that does not mean we can't support those who choose and take the responsibility of leading. nato has done that and to this point the campaign against gaddafi has proven successful. his exports of oil have ceased. he's running short on funds. cabinet and military officials continue to -- from his regime. china has just hosted the opposition in china and they control eastern libya and is making progress in the west. i believe that the wrong decision today will significantly compromise that

progress. gaddafi wrote us a letter in the last debate some weeks ago and thaad the house of representatives for its debate -- and thanked the house of representatives for its debate. is that the message we want to send to gaddafi? i think not. it would stop the growing movements of democratization across the middle east and across the world and it would severely undermine our nato alliance as we all know. if we want our allies to stand by us in our time of need in afghanistan we have to stand by them in places like libya. we're either in an alliance or we're not. i do believe that president obama could and should have done a better job of consulting with congress at the outset of hostilities, and i do believe we are involved in hos -- hostilities. but i believe we must, we must as a faithful ally and defender of freedom defeat the rooney

resolution and support the hastings resolution. america ought to do no less, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee on armed services, the gentleman from florida, mr. west. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. west: i thank you for yielding. the war powers act of 1973 states the president can send u.s. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of congress or in case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. so as we look at the mission or the perceived mission that we have in libya, it does not even meet this criteria. i stand here today as someone who has been set forth on these shores in the 22 years that i served in the united states

army, i stand here as the son of a man who left these shores to go defend this great country in world war ii. i stand here as a younger brother of a man who left these shores to go defend this country and fight in vietnam. and i stand here today as the nephew of a young man, a captain who has already done two tours of duty in afghanistan. many of my friends have called me. some call me as colonel. some call me as allen and say, we need you to do one simple thing. understand that the oath they take is to support and defend the constitution, to support and defend the laws of this country. they need us to stand up and be the guardians of the laws of this country. just before i came here today, i promoted jerry lee stern to be a major and i read him that oath of office that he would greatly take what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great nation is uphold the laws and not send our men and women into

undefined and unspecified mission. they want to fight. they want to stand up for us. let's do the right thing by them, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you. i appreciate the time. i'm going to vote for the hastings resolution and against the rooney resolution for one person in particular. three words. jane ann morgan. a high school friend of mine in pasadena, california, who was on pan am flight 103. she and 177 other americans lost their lives 23 years ago and we should not forget them. gaddafi was osama bin laden before there was osama bin laden. and we cannot stop until he is out of power and the 178 americans who died and the soldiers who died in the berlin discos's lives are remembered. i support the resolution and

vote in thinking of jane ann morgan today. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: just for the record, mr. speaker, the original mission was not to get gaddafi. the original mission, as explained by the president, was to help for humanitarian purposes those civilians that gaddafi was threatening. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the gentleman and associate myself with his remarks right now. we were told this is about protecting civilians. this has become a cover for regime change. just because we can change a regime with military power doesn't mean we should do it and using military action doesn't mean that you're going to achieve the objectives that maybe you haven't even clearly defined. furthermore, if our allies make a mistake, do we follow them? if our allies are going out of

the war, why should we go in? right now you have china's foreign minister saying, we hope the two parties in the conflict can attach importance to the country and the people's interests and ernestly consider the international community's relevant resolution plans, quickly cease hostilities and resolve the crisis through political challenges. the outgoing head of the arab league said this two days ago, now is the time to do whatever you can to reach a political solution. that has to start with a genuine ceasefire under international supervision. the president of south africa said a few days ago that this about regime change, political assassination and foreign military occupation. vote against this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: i have said that i would vote for a resolution

granting authority to the president if it was appropriately limited in conditions. i would like to see conditions that require the benghazi government to remove from their midst the al qaeda fighters and the islamic libyan fighters group. i would like to see the conditions that we use the gaddafi money that we seized, some $30 billion, rather than taxpayer money. but put those conditions aside. the one thing we almost all agree on is that we want to -- that we would want to limit this to air forces and perhaps a ground rescue mission if necessary. that's not what this resolution does. section 1 grants authority to the president to do whatever he decides to do including armor divisions on the ground in support of the nato mission. don't be fooled by section 2 which provides the president with nonbinding, unsolicited advice that we think that we should limit our ground operations to rescue missions and diplomatic security.

this is a grant of authority to the president to put armored divisions on the ground if that's what he chooses to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i will yield my final minute in a moment. consistent with the policy in here it says congress does not support deploying, establishing or maintaining the presence of members of the united states armed forces on the groupped in libya. the resolution -- ground in libya. it clearly prohibits ground forces. with that i yield my final minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i would start out first to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, who i think laid this out clearly. this is a message that goes globally, this is a destiny message. the speaker of this house understands his role, he

understands that all of america is watching us today and even though if i'd had a vote i would have said no, don't go into libya, if i had an opportunity to amend this resolution i would say, let's extend the authorization -- or let's limit the authorization to a shorter period of time so that the president can come do what he should do. but i believe that there are scores of americans in their graves today because this congress sent the wrong message in several conflicts that encouraged our enemy, the object of war is to destroy the minute's will and ability to conduct war. and i would shorten that up to say, if you can destroy their will it doesn't matter what their ability is, you've taken their ability with it. but this message, it encourages our enemy, this resolution says that congress stands with the constitutional authority of the president to be commander in chief and to conduct our foreign policy. we should conduct our disagreement with the president domestically, not in our foreign policy and not by limiting an activity that could abrogate our

nato treaty. i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: might i ask how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one minute remaining and the gentleman from washington's time has expired. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate is expired. pursuant to house resolution 238, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution authorizing the limited use of the united states armed forces in support of the nato mission in libya. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. berman: mr. speaker, on that

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 123, the nays are 295, the joint resolution is not passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor of house joint resolution 59. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will the members kindly vacate the well and clear the aisle, staff, take conversations off the floor of the house. the house will be in order.

will members kindly take their conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 328, i call up h.r. 2278, to limit the use of funds appropriated to the department of defense for united states armed forces in support

of north atlantic treaty organization operation unified protector, with respect to libya. unless otherwise specified, specifically authorized by law. and i ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. will members kindly take their conversations off the floor. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2278, a bill to limit the use of funds appropriated to the department of defense for united states armed forces in support of north atlantic treaty organization operation unified protector with respect to libya unless otherwise specifically authorized by law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 238, the bill is considered as read. mr. rooney and mr. smith will each control 30 minutes. the house will be in order.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. please, take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from florida is recognized.

mr. rooney: mr. speaker, on march 19 of this year the president sent us into kinetic military activity or war in libya. within 48 hours the president notified the congress in accordance with the war powers act of his decision to do so. for 60 days the president under the war powers act had the opportunity and chose not to come to this body and make the case as to why being in libya was important. on the 60th day he wrote a letter to this body saying that he would welcome authorization but he's not asking for it. time and time again on the armed services committee we were presented with speakers from the administration who would give certain updates on various matters to which i would ask you, are you here to -- i would ask, are you here to ask authsization and the witnesses would say no.

-- authorization and the witnesses would say no. after 90 days and the president has not seized activity or hostilities in little bit -- ceased activity or hostilities in libya, the time has come and gone and we've sent our indication over to the administration time and time again that we disapprove. but because the war powers resolution by some either in the republican or in the democrat or in the house or the senate is questionable whether or not they consider it constitutional or not, the president has operated in what we now know is called the zone of twilight as to whether or not he even needs our approval. so what are we left with? mr. speaker, we're left with today our option under our ability under the power of the purse to restrict funds from ongoing operations in libya. without it and without the supreme court weighing in on whether or not the war powers is unconstitutional, in my opinion the president is breaking the law but he is being restricted by nobody and being able to

continue unfettered. some have said that the war powers resolution isn't worth the paper that it's written on. to that i say, based on what supreme court decision? based on what precedent? there is none because the courts haven't weighed in on it. i know some of my colleagues here have a pending case before the court and i wish them well. but what if they don't accept the case? what if they say these members, as they have said before, don't have standing? then we're right back to square one. mr. speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to the executive branch and this transcends party, but it exerts our power under the separation of powers to say we, the house of representatives, are relevant, we the house of representatives are exercising our ability that the founding fathers gave us in the ability to declare war, because they wanted us to have this

deliberation, this debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on both sides that have been very good. because the last thing that we want as americans is for some president, whether it's this president or some future president, to be able to pick fights around the world without any debate from another branch of government. it's the most difficult thing we have to do as government officials and that's send our kids into harm's way. so it has to be a long debate and the president had 60 days and chose not to engage in that debate. so here we are today saying, if you chouse not to come here and get altogether -- choose not to come here and get authorization, we are going to stop it until you do. the president always has the ability in the future to come and try to get authorization for what he's doing in libya or anywhere else. so, mr. speaker, i rise in support of my bill to withdraw

funding from future engagement in libya and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you. the bottom line with this resolution, and i think the gentleman made a lot of very fair points, i certainly think that the white house could have handled it better in terms of communicating with congress, but what this resolution would do that he has presented would be to end our mission in libya. so all of the debates and arguments that you heard from the previous discussion apply to this just as well. it has some limited options in terms of what the president could continue to do in support of nato, but it very specifically disallows any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. it does allow for aerial refueling, it allows for rescue missions, but what the military

has made clear is they will not do that without all of the other assets that are necessary to suppress enemy fire, enemy fire. we are not going to send off our aerial refueling apparatus if we know we can't protect them from being shot down. so the effect of this resolution is to again end the mission in libya and people have different opinions about where they should come down on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya -- on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya. i do believe that congress' voice should be heard on this issue. that's why i supported the previous resolution that would have authorized that. i don't think we should stop what we're doing in libya and getting back to the previous debate, there have been some comments that have been made that i want to be sure and correct. i think we have a much better idea of who the forces in libya fighting against muammar gaddafi are than has been said and we know this because they control roughly half the country right now. what our mission was able to do

is stop muammar gaddafi from being able to crush the folks who are rising up against him and retake the territory that they have. so in benghazi and in most of i think it's eastern libya, it is controlled by these opposition forces. and by all accounts they are running a very sensible government. it is not an islamic state, it does not have al qaeda influence, it has a bunch of people who are simply trying to exercise free expression that they have been denied for nearly 40 years by muammar gaddafi. we have a very good idea who these people are. they are precisely the type of people that the united states of america should be supporting. and as i mentioned before, in our great struggle against al qaeda, one of the centerpieces of it is ideological. the ideology that bin laden and many others advance is very antiwestern and their biggest government is that the west has consistently supported governments that have repressed the muslim people. that we have not been good for

them. and there are at least one or two instances when that argument actually has some facts to back it up. and now we are presented with a chance to support a legitimate group of people who want basically what we have, democracy. they want the ability to vote for their representatives, they want a voice in their government and we are going to pull the rug out from under them. and keep in mind, this is a very limited mission. it is nato-led, but we are offering critical support to make it possible. and if we vote for the rooney resolution, we will pull all of that away and right at the moment, in fact there was a newspaper story this morning about how gaddafi is talking about leaving tripoli because the pressure is getting too great on him, we have had continual members of the libyan government abandoning gaddafi, he is ready to fall and those voices of libyan people who want the very freedoms that we all say we want for them are ready to rise and we are going to reverse that by pulling out this

minimal level of support that we are offering. that is the effect of the rooney resolution and therefore i oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend from texas, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding time and commend him for this legislation. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill and in defense of the constitution. the founding fathers clearly intended for congress to have the power to commit this nation into armed conflict. article 1, section 8 of the constitution states that congress shall have the power to declare war. our first commander in chief, george washington, knew that when he said the constitution vets the power of declaring war in congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

that is exactly what this bill is about. and president obama, when he was a senator, knew this when he said that the president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. he went on further to say that no law can give congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as a co-equal branch the constitution made it. i couldn't agree more with him. but unfortunately as president mr. obama appears to no longer agree with his prior interpretation of the constitution. and in reviewing the war powers act, we can argue that it is unconstitutional. but that is for the supreme court to decide. in applying the war powers act to the facts here in this case it is clear that the president failed to comply with the requirements to get congressional approval. and when we examine the merits of the case for involvement in libya, this administration has

wholly failed to define a clear national interest, mission or goal. why are we there? are we there to kill gaddafi? or to provide humanitarian aid? and since when does humanitarian aid come from a missile launch from a predator drone? and who are these rebels that we are supporting? the administration has failed to provide congress with a clear answer to this question. . we do know some are tied to terrorist organizations. the bill introduced by my good friend from florida, mr. rooney, reasserts congress' role as a co-equal branch of government and sends a clear message to the president that he must get congressional approval before he commits this nation to war. as he stated when he was in the united states senate. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms.

jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank mr. smith and let me thank him for his leadership and for characterizing where we are today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture. i'm looking at the vote count and it looks as if 225 republicans voted against a time certain to get out of libya. if you read the resolution, h.r. 2278, and i'm looking over and over again, there really is no print as to a time certain. there is a nebulous statement

about limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational planning. that can go on ad infinitum. we can take the american people's money forever and ever and continue in this effort. i don't like where we are today. actually it is true, it is congress' right to declare war and the war powers resolution which my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on this constitutionality, and of course they used it in the past, does indicate that it was done in order to track the constitution and allow congressional consultation. there was a letter sent by the president. there has been a report sent, but there's no doubt that this was not handled right. but in the iraq war, an unnecessary war, no arab league states asked us to join with them. there was no defined threat to the united states in the iraq war as we said.

we left the afghanistan war to dilly-dally in iraq and lose 4,000 soldiers. so where is the lack of hypocrisy here? right now the arab league has asked us to join them. right now our nato allies are engaged in trying to get rid of an oppressive abuser and a person who has killed his own people. where is the dignity on this place? it's nothing but politics. and i respect my colleagues who want to make choices about which direction they want to go. but i will tell you i'd much rather have to be able to vote for something that is time certain, ending in one year and before, and if there is not a definitive end, then i will offer a briffed resolution to get out of libya, but i don't want to abandon my friends in the arab states who are now struggling for democracy. why is syria different? why is yemen different? why is bahrain different? you are absolutely right because

other forces are engaged in syria, yemen, and bahrain. and the arab states are attempting to negotiate. so i'm not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds of wars. i'm not interested in going there but i am interested in being consistent. we now have an operation and we can tell that there is movement by those who are rebels and i'd like my friends to document for me if they have got a documented presence of al qaeda, then they can tell us that. but right now we have an obligation and we can't play politics. and this resolution is nothing but politics because it does not end when we are supposed to get out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. smith: additional 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it is a continuous, unending obligation to be able to be in libya. i would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we have no more than a year

and i would offer to the white house that we would like reports sooner than that and some of us may wish to go forward with another resolution to move us out. i will not be supporting politics today. i have to support those who are fighting for justice in libya. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: i would beg to -- prior to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, because there are those of us who oppose this bill in principle an we believe we are fighting for justice as well. i want to state that if you believe the war should end, then at least believe we should limit it today. that's what mr. rooney does. i oppose this war, it's unconstitutional, it's in violation of statute, and there's a way to end the war, vote for rooney step one and the kucinich-amash amendment which defunds the d.o.d. bill, you can do that when we come back. but to claim that the arab

league is somehow asking for us to continue this attack on libya is plain false. the fact of the matter is we have al jazeera reporting that italy's foreign minister and outgoing head of the arab league have called for a halt to hostilities in libya. it was reported that two days ago, the outgoing head of the arab league, said now it's time to do whatever we can to reach a political solution and that has to start with a cease-fire under international position. you don't have the arab league here saying come on, go for, it prosecute the war. bomb libya. they are not saying that at all. we have to be very clear about that. even china who is eating our lunch financially, they are not involved in this war. they are saying there ought to be a political solution. that from the chinese minister two days ago. we have to be careful about our intentions here. and our intentions should be to

end this war and we can do it with rooney's bill. the resolution isn't perfect. it doesn't end the war in its entirety immediately. but it does make clear that the united states will not take over the war as european support continues to diminish. the kucinich-amash amendment is compliment complementary. we want to end u.s. involvement in the war in libya. vote yes for mr. rooney's bill which ends direct hostilities immediately and support kucinich-amash when it comes up in two weeks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. i thank ranking member smith for yielding me the time and ask unanimous consent to place extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: i rise in support of this bill as the prior resolution, better late than

never. here again in libya, congress follows in the wake of major executive branch military action absent congressional authorization. i sent a letter to president obama on march 22 regarding what was then called operation morning dawn and never gotten an answer. when one looks at the duration of u.s. military engagements in the middle east, north africa, and central asia and what the future might bring, these are the longest wars and military actions in u.s. history. our nation has fallen into deep debt directly connected to our expenditures of over $1 trillion in the past decade on wars that have not been paid for. and creeping defense commitments in that region and globally now consume over half of the u.s. discretionary budget annually. it is an astounding predicament 20 years after the end of the cold war. as jobless americans question whether our federal government sees their plight. we all know freedom is not free but it is largely the american people that are bearing this military burden more and more

each year. what is most striking that other nations in the region in which we are fighting are simply not carrying anywhere near their fair share of the load of boots on the ground nor have they measured up in terms of putting their treasuries at risk. unless an alliance of nations in that region fight for freedom themselves, they won't own it and we can't transfuse it. sadly compared to the moral justification for world war ii which historians termed american's most just foreign war, our nation in the current period is drawn into resource wars in far-flung place that is history is likely to judge as morally indefensible. the world is full of bad dictators but it always seems the dictators america's most interested in are those that sit atop huge oil reserves. libya has the world's nine largest oil reserves and exports 1.5 million barrels a day. i'll be placing several articles in the record that document west europe's dependence as well as canada's reliance on libya.

the west utter and growing reliance on imported petroleum has twisted our foreign policy and crippled our domestic economy time and again. as we import half of what we consume, until americans clearly see our predicament, our nation will keep repeating these same mistakes. let us be clear on the nature of the libyan economy. 95% of its exports are oil. 80% of its government revenue derives from oil sales. oil represents 25% of libya's g.d.p. and its most important industry. and libya is africa's third largest oil producer. the major powers involved in this military operation have vast interests at stake to the multinational oil corporations that operate in libya. whether it's from italy which gets 22% of its oil from libyan operations through firms like aimee or canada whose nato general is leading operations while canada's second largest corporation has major oil

operations in libya. might i have an additional 15 seconds? miss smith: an additional 15 seconds. miss -- ms. kaptur: the son of colonel gaddafi warned that in the event of a civil war, libya's oilt wealth would be burned. -- oil wealth would be burned. one can see why global powers took note. history will judge whether these resource wars and selected dictator disposals are justifiable, but the answer for america is to invest here at home and to restore america's energy independence. and to extricate ourselves from all these foreign oil involvements. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. rooney. i appreciate the time and also your advancing this resolution. the president has not made the

case for committing our military to the conflict in libya. the president claims that these military actions do not constitution hostilities. however the american people know otherwise. the president is engaged in military action against libya and the gaddafi regime without congressional approval. in addition to ignoring congress, many believe that the president has exceeded the scope of the u.n. security council resolution imposing an embargo, a no-fly scone zone, and authorizing civil protection of the libyan people. the president has told us who we are against, gaddafi. but he cannot tell us who we are for. secretary gates has indicated that we know little about the opposition or rebels. we do not know their geopolitical view, their neighbors, or us. we do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. are we going to have atrocities? we do not know their ideology or preferred form of government or if they have a commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an issue that

is incredibly important in the area of libya. the president has used the united nations approval of liffle protection to wage an all-out war on gaddafi without congressional approval or american support. u.s. admiral lockleer in charge of the nato operations recently stated that ground troops would be needed to provide stability in libya once the gaddafi regime falls. and yet the president has not provided us any information about what a post-gaddafi libya will look like our our involvement. he is committing us to an extended military action and for congress to be relevant, the voices of this body need to be heard. i support the passage of mr. rooney's resolution limiting the use of funds appropriated in the d.o.d. in support of u.s. activities in libya unless otherwise authorized by law. this passage of this resolution is an important step to limit the role of the u.s. military. i urge passage of h.r. res. 2278. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr.

speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, member of the appropriations committee, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if this resolution passes and we weaken nato's mission, gaddafi may very well prevail. his forces will then kill, rape, and torture all those libyans who oppose him as he is already trying to do. gaddafi has reportedly kidnapped thousands of people, including young students to serve as human shields and march at the vanguard of his forces. if any of his own soldiers refuse to gun down unarmed innocent civilians, they are shot immediately. once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those nato and middle eastern nation that is attacked him and seek revenge. remember, this is a man who is already responsible for the deaths of 189 innocent passengers on pan am 103.

let's face it, this is not about whether the obama administration has been fellow enough in explaining the libyan rationale to congress. members understand why the president intervened. we can read. we can think. we can decide. the real question is, will we politicize this effort in the same way that the republican congress politicized president clinton's successful intervention in a nato-led mission in bosnia 15 years ago. . the limited action we're taking to support the nato mission in libya does not rise to a level of conflict meant to be governed by the war powers resolution. presidents of both parties have initiated similar actions. in granada, panama, somalia, bosnia, hatey, kosovo. -- haiti, kosovo. you know, what this really is about, the purpose of this mission is to seize an opportunity to show the world,

particularly the young majority of the arab and muslim world, who are thirsting for economic and political freedoms, that we are on their side. we have the opportunity to show the arab world at every -- and every nation on earth who we are as a people. it shouldn't matter who's in the white house, we should be united in the cause of democracy. we should debate, but when the debate is over, politics should take a backseat to policy. the legacy of america is that we will fight tyranny and defend innocent people as best and as forcefully as we can. and good economic -- in good economic times and bad. this debate should come to an end. we know what's at stake. if gaddafi is allowed to violently suppress the uprising in libya, it will mean many more years of rule, isolated by his repulsive acts of repression and he would have nothing to lose by aiding violent, subversive groups in neighboring country, including those with vulnerable

fledgling democracies like tunisia and egypt. that wouldn't only be a defeat for democracy in the region, it would be a death blow for nato, the most important military alliance the world has yet achieved. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates -- one more minute. do you have one more minute? mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates put some of our nato allies for skipping on their commitments to the structure that is a key to our economic system and the open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, imagine if now we turned our backs on nato. what a global embarrassment. now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator, to give democracy and opportunity in a part of the world that has not experienced it. a part of the world which is vital to america's security. that's why i urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, mr. lynch from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of mr. rooney's resolution. mr. speaker, it's 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 are also hear at home trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of the united states constitution which is the supreme rule of land in -- law in our land. i've heard several times now that this is an argument about politics. well, politics is to congress like wet is to water. we cannot avoid that. but the united states this issue is really within of substance and the united states constitution clearly states that president's power as commander of chief to introduce armed

forces into hostilities may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances. first, a declaration of war, secondly, a specific statutory authorization, and number three, a national emergency created by an attack on the united states or its territories. none of those circumstances is in evidence here today. so despite my great admiration and respect for our president, a lawful premise for this libyan operation does not exist. i've also heard the argument that we have to join with our international neighbors, that we can't dessert them. well, as a matter of fact -- desert them. well, as a matter of fact i've been to iraq 13 times, i've been to afghanistan 10 times. when i first went over to afghanistan after hostilities started, it used to be 50% united states and 50% the rest of the world. now when i go it's about 75% the

u.s. and 25% the rest of the world. so they have migrated out of afghanistan. at the same time they're asking us to pick up the load in libya. i also on my trips, i don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. when i meet our kids they're on their third, fourth, fifth tour of duty. we're stretched very thin, our military families are stretched very thin and i think we should allow our international neighbors to pick up this load. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support mr. rooney's amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: the strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by mr. rooney of florida would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our relationship with nato allies from whom we

will undoubtedly require support in the future. it would also undermine the worldwide effort to protect the people of libya. now, in this amendment there are exceptions, search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning. and i ask the majority if they would put in suppression? because you can't conduct these other missions without suppression. and if we don't have the ability to suppress enemy air defenses, the allies will not be able to continue the bombing campaign. so all of these things that the gentleman says he wants to do and have exceptions for will be undermined by not having suppression. to date, f-18 growlers go in on these missions, they suppress the enemy ray doctors a so that the bombing can -- radars so that the bombing can continue. i think this is fatefully flawed

because of the lack of suppression and i think that we now have to vote against this because of that fact. and i tried to offer this as an amendment but i was told that they weren't interested. so i just hope you understand that you really are undermining this mission. you are really undermining nato. and this deserves to be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new york, colonel gibson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. gibson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for -- the gentleman from florida for yielding me time to speak today. i've been opposed to this operation in libya from the start. in terms of national security priorities, we should be focuses -- focusing on completing operations in iraq and afghanistan, reorganizing the national security establishment to more effectively wage counterterrorism operations against al qaeda and resetting the d.o.d. to defend our cherished way of life in a manner consistent for a republic.

not an empire. going forward we need to learn from these experiences and exercise more discipline. not getting involved in operations like libya where vital national security interests are not present. we should cease our involvement in libya immediately. i'm supporting this resolution to cut off funds for combat operations. i view this as a good start. but i want to be clear. i will not be satisfied until all funds are cut off for this operation, no exceptions. then we need to revise the war powers act to make sure we never again end up with a president taking this country to war without proper authorization. we need to rediscover the founders' intent on this critical issue and i've introduced legislation, the war powers reform act, to make it so. the war powers reform act clarifies when the president may deploy forces into hostilities or imminent threat of hostilities. one, declaration of war, two, statutory authorization or, three, a national emergency created by an attack on the united states or an imminent threat of an attack on our

country. if none of these circumstances are met, the president must first come to congress to obtain authorization before deploying forces. the key change in the war powers reform act is that without prior authorization, the president may not obligate or expend funds to deploy troops into combat. congress must act to restore constitutional balance in the voice of the american people. we need to reform the war powers act and i urge my colleagues to support both this bill and mr. rooney's resolution on libya that we are voting on today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you for yielding. america is a beacon of light around the world. and in a time when many were cowering in their house, wondering if this genocide that gaddafi was bringing to their doorstep would come tomorrow or the next day, american fighters came in and pressed gaddafi's forces back and pushed him back

into tripoli. america has stood for the side of freedom in this arab spring. america has stood for people that don't have a voice for themselves. don't let a dispute between the legislative branch and executive branch result in us pulling the rug out from standing up for freedom. america has a responsibility to finish this through. to stand with our allies. to leave now means gaddafi wins. period. i urge a no vote to this resolution and i thank my colleague for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise, mr. speaker, in reluctant opposition to this amendment. of this resolution. it's well intentioned, without

question. it's meant to limit our involvement in libya, it's meant to support our allies and it's meant to rein in a president who in my opinion is conducting an illegal and certainly unauthorized war. it does both too little and too much. it does too little, frankly, because even after it's passed, the president will continue essentially to be able to operate as he's been operating for several weeks. and it does too much because it gets us into a situation where we effectively micromanage the military by literally listing what missions they should take. the resolution needs to hold the president -- neither holds the president accountable nor ends our involvement in libya and it essentially leaves things exactly where they are. congress should reassert its constitutional authority, mr. speaker, by either authorizing the use of military force or ending it. this resolution avoids either course. it postpones a decision and in doing so, in my view, it erodes the constitutional war making authority of congress and enhances an executive branch that is already overreaching.

we will appear to do something and we will actually do nothing. and so for that reason i reluctantly urge the rejection of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. when the president of the united states went to the united nations security council to urge intervention in the libyan civil war, he frankly missed a stop. he should have come here first. and this congress should have debated the wisdom or lack thereof of that effort. knowing what i know about this, had that debate taken place here, i would be one who would have voted against authorizing the use of force here because i do not believe we have a vital national security interest in

the libyan civil war. i'm going to oppose this resolution, however, because i think that two constitutional wrongs do not make a right. again, i believe the president should have come here and sought the authorization of this congress before he initiated these hostilities. and they are hostilities. but when we have people at risk, when we have lives on the line, i think this resolution raises a practical and a constitutional problem. the practical problem mr. dicks alluded to a few minutes ago and i can think of another vary yags. if a nato -- varation. if a nato ally is sending people into libya on an intelligence gathering function and asked to us provide air cover for that function, is that an intelligence operation or isn't it? i don't know. there's a good argument on

either side, but it's an adjudication that i don't think a u.s. commander in the field ought to have to make. i think it's a practical confusion that does not serve us well when people are at risk. and then secondly just as the president has the obligation, i believe, to seek approval of this body and the other one before he initiates hostilities, he also has the responsibility to conduct those affairs once they begin. our role is to oversee and fund or not fund such activities, but it is not to interfere with them. i think this is an impractical interference so i'm going to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, can i inquire as to the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 14 minutes remaining and the gentleman from washington has 12 minutes remaining. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is