debate at c- span's congressional chronicle, a comprehensive research -- resource on congress. find a video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, and information on your elected officials at c- span.org/congress. next, our lady michelle obama speaks in south africa. after that, president obama talking about new technology and job creation. then, another look at today's house floor debates. the burst of presidential authorization to continue action in libya, the second to live it -- to limit funds for operations there. >> saturday, chief justice john roberts is the featured speaker at the fourth circuit court of appeals. a panel of law professors will review the major supreme court decisions from the last term. live coverage on c-span and c- span radio begins at 9:00 a.m.

eastern. first lady michelle obama was in south of briquette this week on an official visit. she spoke at a church in soweto where a protest took place in 17 -- 1976. that led to the end of apartheid in south africa. she spoke about the apartheid struggle in south africa and the u.s. of a rights movement. this is about 35 minutes. >>thank you. thank you so much. it is such a pleasure and an honor to be here with all of you today. i want to start by thanking graca machel for that just gracious, kind introduction. it is overwhelming. and i want to thank her for her lifetime of service as a champion for women and children.

and from the bottom of my heart, i want to thank you for all of the kindness and generosity that you have shown my family for our visit here. thank you so much. [applause] i am also honored to share the stage with another remarkable leader, baleka mbete. [applause] she has played a vital role in advancing equality and promoting development here in south africa. thank you to the both of you for joining us here for sharing this moment with all of us. i also want to thank the archbishop of johannesburg for honoring us today with his presence. and of course, i want to

recognize our guests of honor -- these 76 extraordinary young women leaders from here in south africa and across the continent. [applause] these are young women transforming their communities and their countries, and let me tell you i am so impressed by all of them. i am so proud of everything they have achieved. and finally, i want to thank the leaders and the congregation of regina mundi for hosting us in this sacred space today. it has been more than three decades, but those bullet holes in the ceiling, this broken altar still stand as vivid

reminders of the history that unfolded here. and you all know the story -- how 35 years ago this month, a group of students planned a peaceful protest to express their outrage over a new law requiring them to take courses in afrikaans. thousands of them took to the streets, intending to march to orlando stadium. but when security forces opened fire, some fled here to this church. the police followed, first with tear gas, and then with bullets.

and while no one was killed within this sanctuary, hundreds lost their lives that day, including a boy named hector pieterson, who was just 12 years old, and hastings ndlovu, who was just 15. many of the students hadn't even known about the protest when they arrived at school that morning. but they agreed to take part, knowing full well the dangers involved, because they were determined to get an education worthy of their potential. and as the archbishop noted, that june day wasn't the first, or the last, time that this church stood in the crosscurrents of history. it was referred to as "the parliament of soweto." when the congregation sang their hymns, activists would make plans, singing the locations and times of secret meetings. church services, and even funerals, often became anti- apartheid rallies. and as president mandela once

put it, "regina mundi became a world-wide symbol of the determination of our people to free themselves." it is a story that has unfolded across this country and across this continent, and also in my country -- the story of young people 20 years ago, 50 years ago, who marched until their feet were raw, who endured beatings and bullets and decades behind bars, who risked, and sacrificed, everything they had for the freedom they deserved. and it is because of them that we are able to gather here today. it is because of them that so many of these young women leaders can now pursue their dreams.

it is because of them that i stand before you as first lady of the united states of america. [applause] that is the legacy of the independence generation, the freedom generation. and all of you -- the young people of this continent -- you are the heirs of that blood, sweat, sacrifice, and love. so the question today is, what will you make of that inheritance? what legacy will you leave for your children and your grandchildren? what generation will you be? now, i could ask these questions of young people in any country, on any continent. but there is a reason why i

wanted to come here to south africa to speak with all of you. as my husband has said, africa is a fundamental part of our interconnected world. and when it comes to the defining challenges of our times -- creating jobs in our global economy, promoting democracy and development, confronting climate change, extremism, poverty and disease -- for all this, the world is looking to africa as a vital partner. that is why my husband's administration is not simply focused on extending a helping hand to africa, but focusing on partnering with africans who will shape their future by combating corruption, and building strong democratic institutions, by growing new crops, caring for the sick. and more than ever before, we will be looking to all of you,

our young people, to lead the way. and i'm not just saying that to make you all feel good. [laughter] the fact is that in africa, people under 25 make up 60 percent of the population. and here in south africa, nearly two-thirds of citizens are under the age of 30. so over the next 20 years, the next 50 years, our future will be shaped by your leadership. and i want to pause for a moment on that word -- leadership -- because i know that so often, when we think about what that word means, what it means to be a leader, we think of presidents and prime ministers. we think of people who pass laws or command armies, run big businesses, people with fancy

titles, big salaries. and most young people don't fit that image. and i know that often when you try to make your voices heard, sometimes people don't always listen. i know there are those who discount your opinions, who tell you you're not ready, who say that you should sit back and wait your turn. but i am here today because when it comes to the challenges we face, we simply don't have time to sit back and wait. i'm here because i believe that each of you is ready, right here and right now, to start meeting these challenges. and i am here because i know that true leadership -- leadership that lifts families, leadership that sustains

communities and transforms nations -- that kind of leadership rarely starts in palaces or parliaments. that kind of leadership is not limited only to those of a certain age or status. and that kind of leadership is not just about dramatic events that change the course of history in an instant. instead, true leadership often happens with the smallest acts, in the most unexpected places, by the most unlikely individuals. i mean, think about what happened here in soweto 35 years ago. many of the students who led the uprising were younger than all of you. they carried signs made of cardboard boxes and canvass sacks.

yet together, they propelled this cause into the consciousness of the world. and we now celebrate national youth day and national youth month every year in their honor. i mean, think about the giants of the struggle -- people like albertina sisulu, whose recent passing we all mourn. orphaned as a teenager, she worked as a nurse to support her siblings. and when her husband, walter sisulu, became secretary- general of the anc, it was up to her to provide for their family. when he was imprisoned for 26 years, it was up to her to continue his work. and that she did. with a mother's fierce love for this country, she threw herself into the struggle. she led boycotts and sit-ins and marches, including the 1956

women's march, when thousands of women from across this country, converged on pretoria to protest the pass laws. they were women of every color, many of them not much older than all of you. some of them carried their babies on their backs. and for 30 minutes, they stood in complete silence, raising their voices only to sing freedom songs like nkosi sikelel iafrica. their motto was simple, but clear: "if you strike a woman, you strike a rock." [applause] ma sisulu, the students of soweto, those women in pretoria, they had little money, even less status, no fancy

titles to speak of. but what they had was their vision for a free south africa. what they had was an unshakeable belief that they were worthy of that freedom -- and they had the courage to act on that belief. each of them chose to be a rock for justice. and with countless acts of daring and defiance, together, they transformed this nation. together they paved the way for free and fair elections, for a process of healing and reconciliation, and for the rise of south africa as a political and economic leader on the world stage. now, i know that as your generation looks back on that struggle, and on the many liberation movements of the past century, you may think that

all of the great moral struggles have already been won. as you hear the stories of lions like madiba and sisulu and luthuli, you may think that you can never measure up to such greatness. but while today's challenges might not always inspire the lofty rhetoric or the high drama of struggles past, the injustices at hand are no less glaring, the human suffering no less acute. so make no mistake about it: there are still so many causes worth sacrificing for. there is still so much history yet to be made. you can be the generation that makes the discoveries and builds the industries that will transform our economies. you can be the generation that

brings opportunity and prosperity to forgotten corners of the world and banishes hunger from this continent forever. you can be the generation that ends hiv-aids in our time - [applause] -- the generation that fights not just the disease, but the stigma of the disease, the generation that teaches the world that hiv is fully preventable, and treatable, and should never be a source of shame. [applause] you can be the generation that holds your leaders accountable for open, honest government at every level, government that stamps out corruption and protects the rights of every citizen to speak freely, to worship openly, to love whomever they choose.

you can be the generation to ensure that women are no longer second-class citizens, that girls take their rightful places in our schools. [applause] you can be the generation that stands up and says that violence against women in any form, in any place - [applause] -- including the home -- especially the home -- that isn't just a women's rights violation. it's a human rights violation. and it has no place in any society. you see, that is the history that your generation can make. now, i have to be honest. your efforts might not always draw the world's attention, except for today. [laughter] you may not find yourself leading passionate protests that fill stadiums and shut down city streets. and the change you seek may

come slowly, little by little, measured not by sweeping changes in the law, but by daily improvements in people's lives. but i can tell you from my own experience -- and from my husband's experience -- that this work is no less meaningful, no less inspiring, and no less urgent than what you read about in the history books. you see, it wasn't that long ago that my husband and i were young, believe it or not -- (laugher) -- just starting out our careers. after he graduated from university, barack got a job as a community organizer in the struggling neighborhoods on the south side of chicago. a lot of people there were out of work and barely getting by. children had few opportunities and little hope for their future. and trust me, no one thought that this skinny kid with the

funny name -- [laughter] -- could make much of a difference. but barack started talking to people. he urged them to start working on the change they wanted to see. soon, slowly, folks started coming together to fight for job training programs and better schools and safer housing for their families. slowly, the neighborhoods started to turn around. little by little, people started feeling hopeful again. and that made barack feel hopeful. and i had a similar experience in my own career. like my husband, i came from a modest background. my parents saved and sacrificed everything they had so that i could get an education. and when i graduated, got a job at a big, fancy law firm --

nice salary, big office. my friends were impressed. my family was proud. by all accounts, i was living the dream. but i knew something was missing. i knew i didn't want to be way up in some tall building all alone in an office writing memos. i wanted to be down on the ground working with kids, helping families put food on the table and a roof over their heads. so i left that job for a new job training young people like yourselves for careers in public service. i was making a lot less money. my office wasn't so nice. [laughter] but every day, i got to watch those young people gain skills and build confidence. and then i saw them go on to mentor and inspire other young people. and that made me feel inspired.

it still does. see, my husband and i, we didn't change any laws, we didn't win any awards, get our pictures in the paper. but we were making a difference in people's lives. we were part of something greater than ourselves. and we knew that in our own small way, we were helping to build a better world. and that is precisely what so many young people are doing every day across this continent. these 76 young women are outstanding examples. take gqibelo dandala from here in south africa. she left a lucrative career in investment banking to found the future of the african daughter project, an organization that lifts up young women in rural

and township areas. of her work, she says: "we are building a legacy which will outlive and outgrow us." and then there's robyn kriel. she's a young reporter from zimbabwe who has written about corruption and human rights abuses in her country. she was beaten by police, her home raided, her mother imprisoned. but she still hasn't lost her passion for reporting, because, as she put it, the people of zimbabwe "want their stories to be told." and then there's grace nanyonga, who joins us today from uganda. hey, grace! [applause] you go, girl. [laughter]

orphaned at the age of 13, she started cooking and selling fish during her school vacations to support her six siblings. determined to get an education, she founded her own company, and she made enough money to put herself through university. and she's now started an organization that trains local women to work at her company so that they can support their own families. [applause] of her achievements, she says, simply -- these are her words -- "i made it against all odds" and "i want to be an example for girls in my country and beyond." now, grace could have been content to make lots of money,

and just provide for her own family. gqibelo could have climbed the corporate ladder, and never looked back. where is she? please stand. grace got to stand. [laughter] in the end, that sense of interconnectedness, that depth of compassion that determination to act in the face of impossible odds -- those are the qualities

of mind and heart that i hope will define your generation. i hope that all of you will reject the false comfort that other's suffering is not your concern, or if you cannot solve all the world's problems, but you not -- that you should not even try. as one of our great american president, teddy roosevelt, like to say, "i hope that you will commit yourself to doing what you can with what you have got where you are." in the end, that is what makes you a lion. not fortune, not famous, not your picture in a history book, but the refusal to remain a bystander when others are suffering. that commitment to serve and

however you can't wherever you are. it will not be easy. now it will not be easy. you women know that already. you will have failures and setbacks and critics and plenty of moments of frustration and doubt. but if you ever start to lose heart, i brought you all here today because i want you to think of each other. think about grace, supporting her family all by herself. and think about robyn, who endured that beating so she could tell other people's stories. think about ma sisulu, raising her kids alone, surviving banishment, exile, and prison. when reflecting on her journey, ma sisulu once said, with her signature humility, she said, "all these years, i never had a comfortable life." so you may not always have a

comfortable life. and you will not always be able to solve all the world's problems all at once. but don't ever underestimate the impact you can have, because history has shown us that courage can be contagious, and hope can take on a life of its own. it's what happens when folks start asking questions -- a father asks, "why should my son go to school, but not my daughter?" or a mother asks, "why should i pay a bribe to start a business to support my family?" or a student stands up and declares, "yes, i have hiv, and here's how i'm treating it, and here's how we can stop it from spreading." see, and then soon, they inspire others to start asking questions. they inspire others to start stepping forward. and those are the "ripples of

hope" that a young u.s. senator named robert kennedy spoke of when he came here to south africa 45 years ago this month. in his words, he said, the "numberless diverse acts of courage and belief which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." and that is how a church can become a parliament. that is how a hymn can be a call to action. that is how a group of young people with nothing more than some handmade signs and a belief in their own god-given potential can galvanize a nation. peoplet's how young around the world can inspire each other, and draw strength from each other. i'm thinking today of the young activists who gathered at the american library here in soweto

to read the speeches of dr. martin luther king for their inspiration. and i'm thinking of how dr. king drew inspiration from chief luthuli and the young people here in south africa. and i'm thinking about how young south africans singing the american civil rights anthem "we shall overcome" in the streets of cape town and durban. and i'm thinking of how nkosi sikelel iafrica echoed through university campuses in the u.s., as students -- including my husband -- planned boycotts to support students here in south africa. and i'm thinking of this church and how those stained windows depicting the struggle were donated by the people of poland, and how the peace pole in the park outside was donated by people from japan, and how every week, visitors from every corner of the globe come here to

bear witness and draw inspiration from your history. and finally, i'm thinking of the history of my own country. i mean, america won its independence more than two centuries ago. it has been nearly 50 years since the victories of our own civil rights movement. yet we still struggle every day to perfect our union and live up to our ideals. and every day, it is our young people who are leading the way. they are the ones enlisting in our military. they're the ones teaching in struggling schools, volunteering countless hours in countless ways in communities. and in this past presidential election, they were engaged in

our democracy like never before. they studied the issues, followed the campaign, knocked on doors in the freezing snow and the blazing sun, urging people to vote. they waited in line for hours to cast their ballots. and i have seen that same passion, that same determination to serve in young people i have met all across the world, from india to el salvador, from mexico to the united kingdom to here in south africa. so today, i want you to know that as you work to lift up your families, your communities, your countries and your world, know that you are never alone. you are never alone. as bobby kennedy said here in south africa all those years ago -- "you are joined with

fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose, determined to build a better future." and if anyone of you ever doubts that you can build that future, if anyone ever tells you that you shouldn't or you can't, then i want you to say with one voice -- the voice of a generation -- you tell them, "yes, we can." [applause] what do you say? yes, we can. [applause] what do you say? yes, we can! >> yes, we can! >> what do you say? >> yes, we can! >> thank you all so much. god bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪

>> next, president obama at carnegie mellon talking about new technology and job creation. then, two house floor debates. the first on authorization to continue actions in libya. the second, funding for the operations there. >> this weekend on c-span2's booktv, the magnitude that there -- terrorist threats against the

u.s.. michael pence on how the global economy will change in the next 50 years. and author matthew algio reflects on president grover cleveland's surgery. sign up for but to be alert to receive schedules in your in box. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, a gettysburg college professor discusses prostitution -- discusses prostitution in the civil war. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> but that obama at carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh to launch the advanced manufacturing partnership, encouraging investment in

emerging technologies. the president viewed the university's robotics engineering center, the world of the largest robotics organization. this is about 30 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, everybody. please have a seat. thank you very much. hello, pittsburg. it is good to be back. thank you, senator casey.

thank all of you for having me back here at carnegie mellon. it is good to be here. it seems like every time i am here i learned something. one of my responsibilities as commander in chief is to keep an eye on robots. [laughter] i am pleased to report that the robots you manufacture here seemed peaceful. [laughter]

at least for now. this is a city that knows something about manufacturing. for generations of americans, it was the ticket to a middle-class life. here and across america's industrial heartland, millions clot in each day at foundries, on assembly lines to make things. the stuff we make -- steel, cars, planes -- was the stuff that made america what it is. jobs were good. they paid enough to own a home. raise kids and send them to college. to retire. they were jobs that told us something more important than just how much money we made. it was not our paychecks.

these jobs also told us we are meeting our responsibilities to our family and our neighborhoods and building our communities and building our country. but for better or worse, our generation has been pounded by wave after wave of profound economic change. revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live and the way we work. businesses and industries can relocate anywhere in the world -- anywhere there are skilled workers and anywhere there is an internet connection. companies have learned to become more efficient with fewer employees. in pittsburg, you know this as well as anybody. steel mills that once needed 1000 workers now do the same work with 100. while these changes have resulted in great wealth for some americans, it has breasted

-- it has also caused major disruptions for many others. today, a high-school diploma no longer guarantees you a job. over the past 13 years about a third of our manufacturing jobs have vanished. meanwhile, the typical wages have barely kept up with the rising cost of everything else. all of this was even before the financial crisis, the recession that pounded the middle class even more. we have made some tough decisions that have turned our economy in a positive direction of the past two years. we have created more than 2 million new jobs in the private sector over the past 15 months alone, including almost 250,000 in manufacturing. but we still have to confront those underlying problems. they were not caused overnight and we will not solve them overnight, but we will solve them.

we are starting to solve them right here in pittsburg, right here at carnegie mellon. [applause] by the way, that is why i ran for president. not just to get us back to where we work, i ran for president to get us where we need to be. i have a larger mission for america, one we're working families feel secure, feel like they are moving forward, and they know that their dreams are within reach. a america where our business is lead the world in new technology and clean energy. where we work together, democrats and republicans, to live within our means, to cut our deficits and debt, but also to invest in what our economy needs to grow -- world-class education, cutting edge

research, and building the best transportation and communications infrastructure anywhere in the world. that is what it takes to win the future and winning the future begins with getting our economy going right now. carnegie mellon is a great example of what it means to move forward. at its founding, no one would have imagined that a trade school or the sons and daughters of field workers would one day become the region's largest employer and a global research university. yet, and of nations led by your professors and your students have created more than 300 companies and 9000 jobs over the past 15 years. companies like carnegie robotics. more important than the ideas are what those ideas have become. they have become products made right here in america.

in many cases, sold all over the world. that is in our blood. that is to we are. we are veterans, we are makers, and we are doers. yet we want hate robust and growing economy, we need a robust growing manufacturing sector. that is why we told the auto industry two years ago that they were willing to adapt, we would stand by them. today they are profitable. they are creating jobs and replacing taxpayer is ahead of schedule. that is why -- [applause] that is why we have lost the partnership to retrain workers with new skills. that is why we have invested in clean energy manufacturing and new jobs for building when turbines and solar panels. we have not run out of step to make. we just have to reinvigorate our

manufacturing sector so it will lead the world the way it always has with paper, steel, and the products we had not dreamed up yet. that is how we are going to spark new industries. that is all we will create jobs for the middle-class and secure our economic leadership. this is why i asked my council of advisers on science and technology a while back to look at the state of american manufacturing and the promise of advanced manufacturing. my concept of the best manufacturing is not complicated. it means held we do things better, faster, cheaper to design and manufacture superior products that help us compete all over the world. these a very smart folks, many of whom are represented here, drew up a report that is on the white house website.

we did not want to just issue a report, we wanted to get something done. we have launched an all hands on deck effort between our brightest academic-, business leaders, and our most dedicated public servants from science and technology agency's all with one big goal -- a win is lots of american manufacturing. we are calling it "amp." the advanced manufacturing projects. some of our most innovative -- innovative manufacturers from johnson and johnson to honeywell, a striker, to allegheny technologies. i ask the president of mit, who is here -- there is susan. [applause] -- the ceo of dow chemicals

[applause] -- to lead this partnership and to work with my own advisers in science, technology, and manufacturing. throughout our history, our greatest -- our greatest breakthroughs and pop and country partnerships like this. american innovation has always been sparked by individual scientist and author purports all and at universities like carnegie-mellon, at georgia tech, where stanford. but a lot of companies do not invest in early ideas because it will not pay off right away. that is where government can step in. that is how we ended up with some of the world changing innovations that killed our growth and prosperity and created countless jobs from mobile homes, the internet, gps,

or then150 drugs and -- more than 150 drugs and pharmaceuticals. the national science foundation helped find it stamper's digital library project in the 1990's. the idea was to develop a universal digital library that anybody could access. degette zero enterprising students got excited about -- two enterprising students got excited about research that was being done at stanford. these students moved up from campus to a friend's garage and they lost this company called "google." when the private sector runs with the ball, it leads to jobs that are successful over the world. this new partnership that we have created will make sure that

tomorrow's breakthroughs are american breakthroughs. we are teaming up to foster -- [applause] we are teaming up to foster the kind of collaborative -- the kind of collaboration that resulted in those discoveries. to create the kind of innovation infrastructure necessary to get ideas from the drawing board to the manufacturing floor to the market more rapidly. all of which will make our businesses more competitive and create new high-quality manufacturing jobs. to help businesses operate at less cost, the energy department will develop new manufacturing processes that will use half as much energy. that will free up money for companies to hire new workers or buy new equipment, to help businesses discover, develop,

and deploy materials twice as fast. we are launching the "materials genome convention." it took years to get technology from the drawing board to the marketplace. we can do it faster. to help everyone from factory workers to astronauts carry out more complicated tasks, nasa and other agencies will support research into next generation robotics. i just met with people from red zone robotics to make robots that export water and sewer pipes. i have to say, it is fascinating stuff. the robot can go through any sewer system. it is operated remotely by a municipal worker. it has a camera attached so it can sell everything it is

seeing. it then transmits the data that goes into a citywide data base. they can enhance the productivity of these workers by three or four-fold and help the city make even better decisions. potentially, this can save city's millions in an upper structure calls. companies are also training new workers to operate the robots. analysts sort to the data being collected it will help smaller manufacturers compete. federal agencies are working with private companies to create modeling software. i just saw an example. a few years ago, procter and gamble came up with researchers at los alamos national labs to adapt software developed for war to figure out what is happening with nuclear particles. they are using these simulators to dramatically boost the

performance of diapers. [laughter] yes, diapers. chuckle, but those who have been parents or always on the lookout for indestructible, military grade diapers. [laughter] [applause] but here is what is remarkable -- ewing this simulation software that was developed at los alamos, procter and gamble has saved $500 million. half a billion dollars as a consequence of the simulator. through the new partnership we're setting up, procter and gamble is altering its powerful tool with dynamic simulator to smaller manufacturers and is doing it for free. this is not just because procter and gamble wants to do good, it

is also they have thousands of suppliers. they are thinking to themselves, "if we can apply this simulation technology to our smaller suppliers, they will be able to make their products cheaper and better and that will save us even more money per "it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. starting this summer, federal agencies will partner with industries to boost manufacturing in areas critical to our national security. i saw an example backstage. the defense department scientists -- we call it darfa -- the folks who bought a stealth technology and, by the way, brought us the internet, what the to see if it was possible to design defense systems cheaper and faster. they felt a small company in arizona and they gave them a

test. you have one month to design a new combat support vehicle and you have three months to build it. the cso is here today. -- the ceo is here today. he is an ex-marine who lost a couple of buddies in combat. he understood the importance of increasing the speed and flexibility for vehicles used in theater. they listed the design ideas on the website, chose the best, built and brought this new vehicle here ahead of schedule. we just took a look at it. not only could this change the way the government uses your tax dollars because, think about it, instead of having a 10-year lead time to develop a piece of equipment with all kinds of changing specifications -- if we

were able to collapse the pace at which that manufacturing takes place, that could save taxpayers billions of dollars, but it also could get products out to peter patter, which could save lives more quickly and could then be used to transfer into the private sector more rapidly, which means we get better products and services we can sell and export around the world. it is good for american companies, it is good for american jobs, it is good for taxpayers, and it may save some lives in places like afghanistan for our soldiers. that is what this is all about. it is a futuristic and, let's face it, it is cool. as much as we are planning for america's future, this partnership is about new, cutting edge ideas to create new jobs, partner new breakthroughs, reinvigorate american manufacturing today, right now.

not somewhere off in the future, right now. it is about making sure our workers and businesses and the skills and tools they need to compete better come up after, and smarter than anybody else. that is what we are about. we are america and we do not just keep up with changing times, we set the pace for changing times. [applause] we adapt, we and the day, we lead the way forward. we lead thevate, way forward. there was a time when steele was as technological as manufacturing got. andrew carnegie, an immigrant, discovered new ways to mass produce -- mass produce steel cheaper. everything changed. just 20 years after founding his company, not only was it the largest, most profitable in the

world, america had become the no. 1 steelmaker in the world. imagine if america was the first to develop and mass-produced a new treatment that kill cancer cells but please help me once untouched. or solar cells you can brush onto a house at the same cost as pain. or flexible displays that soldiers can wear on their arms. or a car that drives itself. imagine how many workers and businesses and consumers would prosper from that greatness. those things are not science fiction. they are real. they are being developed and deployed in labs and factories right now. they sprang from the imagination of students and scientists an altar for norse like all of you. the purpose of this partnership is to prove that the united states of america has your back,

is going to be supporting you because that is the kind of a pioneering spirit we need right now. [applause] that is the spirit as given us the tools to overcome every obstacle -- every obstacle and adapt to every circumstance. if we remember that spirit, if we combine our creativity, our innovation, and our optimism -- if we come together for a common cause, then we will try it again. we'll get to where we need to be and we will make this century the american century just like the last one. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> next, and two house floor debates. the first, to end funds for libya. -- the first, about the situation in libya. secondly, funding of the operation. c-span has launched a new web site for politics and the 2012 presidential race with the latest c-span advance from the campaign trail, information from the candidates, twitter feeds and updates from reporters, and links to c-span media partners.

visit us at c-span.org/campaign 2012. ron paul discusses his previous presidential bid. his strategy for winning the gop nomination, as well as his years as a doctor, service in the military, and his views on congress. "road to the white house," sunday night on c-span. the house overwhelmingly rejected a measure giving the president the authority to continue u.s. operations in libya. 70 democrats voted against the residential operation. the congressional action will have no immediate effect on american involvement in the mission.

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-lehten: 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, d 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 leae. 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, t 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 solve

this problem quickly. but now we have drifted into an apparently open-ended commitment with goals that remain only vaguely defined, and th 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 re 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 fro 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, iust 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 transitn. 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 unpredictae 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 musttherefore, oppose this relution, 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 fr 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 ofheir votes with this one. mr. speaker, the underlying legislation authorizes the limited use of ited 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 commitee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentlela 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 resoluti that endorses the policies that have been going on for four months. not only is the congress basicallbeen 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 becse 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 f 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 grnd

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 surehey 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 ghanistan 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 who idea of legalizing this effort, to legalize the bombing, at least give the authority to the president to continue this is foolhardy. how ny more wars can we withstand? what mum is this? thiss 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 whever 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: unfortunate, 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 tomany 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 gentlen 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. mcdermt: 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 te 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 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 rawandansnd 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 someing 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 sport 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 thr minutes. mrpoe: 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 presidenfor 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 lettero 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 th'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 onhis 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 whe 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 thatould 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 etremist radical regime. that's all because we are in a war that was unauthorized by this congress, cut off all funds, vote against this relution. 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 oppositeiew 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 tl 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 presidt's top legal advisors at the pentagon and department of justice determines that the warowers 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 militaryconflict. 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,oo, but he didn't.

but the wrong thg 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 we able to stop it by our presence there. the house -- the vote we take in the house today will have implications far beyond ou 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 appropriions 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 theinternational 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 governme's response to the uprising inspired by arab spring was to use force against cilians 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 mtary 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. berm: 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 resoluti. 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. speakeri'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlemafrom minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for a minute and a ha. 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 siness 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 oppreson 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 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 congressn, 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: irefer 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 plsed 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 particula 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 approiately 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 stement 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 dring 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 enti 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 e 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 authori 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 he no troops on the ground. it is transitional government. let's work together. let's pass thiresolution. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman ha 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. mon. 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, trainig, 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 tt 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 ide with gaddafi against the forces who are fighting for those values which define us. yoknow, 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. 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 humanitaan 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 fothe 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 gentlemafrom 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-lehten: 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 willail and they think its defeat will be a political defeat for the white house. if tt type of trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it. . 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 rmainder 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 perft 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 republics didn't give this side the choice of the resolution for authorization, they told us what the resolution for authorization uld 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, thaing 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 thisartilar 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 preciate all the policy arguments that i have heard here today, but the question for me is, is it illegal or not? if it's 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 thaare

represented by this body. reportedly the psident 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 present 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 prtempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time has expired. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman om 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. mrmckeon: 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 erican warriors to protect civilians from a brutal dictater is a noble cae. yet i also express my reservations at the time because i feared that the mission could result in a protracted stalate. 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 rk 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 mea 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 fromashington. >> 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. milita 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 gaddafto be stopped from slaughtering the civilians who were rightfully anding 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, congrs 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, ll, 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 ne 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 americaneople know if congress doesn't we're $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion short

this year and we're $14 trillion in de. 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 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:he 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 proval of congress. president bush came to congress before he went into iraq. president bush came to congress fore he went into afghanistan. and that's as it should be. and this president should not overstep his boundaries. and wh i wish we would do which would exceed the legislation we're going to be

lking 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 mpore: 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 thmessage 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 se 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, 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 alli 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 ales 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 a 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 meethis criteria. i std 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 aa 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 oa of office that he would greatly take what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great nation is hold 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 flig 103. she and 177 other americans lost their lives 23 yearsgo and we should not forget them. gaddafi was osama bin laden before there was osama bin laden. and we cannot op 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 speakepro tempore: the gentleman yields bac 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 havet even clearly defined. furthermore, if our allies make a mistake, do weollow 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 dayago that this abt 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 tt 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 fighter 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 secity. 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 authoration -- 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. d 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. t 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 op >> the house also turned back a republican-led effort to cut funding from libya. the funding measure would have barred drawn attacks and airstrikes. this floor debate on the measure is one hour and 15 minutes. 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 recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: this bill defunds libya unless authorized specifically by law. if it passes long before it's passed by the senate the passed by the senate the president will come to us and