league here saying come on, go for, it prosecute the war. bomb libya. they are not saying that at all. we have to be verylear 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 eopean 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 tempe: 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

diators 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 aga. 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 t 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 a 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, lya'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 stifiable, 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 eaker 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 foes, 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 peoplenow 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 hastold 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 prident 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 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 otherwe 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 mayvery 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 marcat 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 suprt 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, t purpose of this mission is to seize an opportunity 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 colleague to reject this legiation. 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 thankhe 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 est. 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 secity 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 o funds forombat 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, n 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 comeo 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 reore 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 onibya 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 colleae 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 yieldi. 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 msions 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 unanius consento revisand 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 e 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 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 me. 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 president will come to us and ask for authorization. and i for one would want to grant limited conditional authorization. . we just rejected a limited

authorization. all authority and no limbation. that's how it would be interpreted by the white house legal counsel given how it was drafted. the house should consider real binding limits and conditions. because democracy and rule of law for the people of libya is important, but democracy and rule of law for the people of the united states is more important. there are those who regret they cannot offer an amendment to this bill. yes, they can. the motion to recommit will be in order just as soon as we end debate. i know that we have had important resolutions from the arab league, the u.n., and nato. those are not substitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? 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 gentlewoman from georgia, member of the foreign affairs committee and also a member of the nato

parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it is a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congss for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. fortunately i believe that this measure isjust an attempt to rather in a strong way get the attention of the president. maybe to chastise the president a bit. so surely. but i think if you look at the record there were communications here, but there is a larger profound message here. it's not a message that this is to send to the president. this is a bad time piece of

legislation because it sends the wrong message to the world. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, we are the leaders of the free world. america is a great country and our standing is at stake and this move, this bill will pull the rug out from under nato at precisely the time when we need to be sending a strong message of encouragement. the united states is in a support role here. so it is very important that we defeat this amendment and make sure that we send the right message to our allies that we will notull the rug out from under them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i want to send message to our allies, and i don't think we are pulling the rug out from under them.

look at these wealthy populous nations of western europe. i believe it's a good thing to get rid of gaddafi. does america have to do everything? people say we are e indispensable nation. that's a terrible burden to impose on ourself. we cannot afford it and it cannot be done effectively. let's get people who can dispense with it. my friend, the ranking member of the appropriations committee said, we have to do this because nato can bomb but they can't suppress. what a great bunch of allies, they can bomb on armed people but if they shoot back they got to come running to as you. yes, i want to send a messageto nato. gaddafi's a bad guy. if england and france and italy and germany and spain and the netherlands and scandinavia can't together muster the military force for this weakened poor nation, then let's re-examine the value of this ally. there was in the "king and i" when he says, if the allies are

weak might not -- it's time for them to step up. this is not to protect gaddafi. it's to say that america can no longer be asked to be the one that does everythi, everywhere, every time our allies have to step up. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i really speak on the house floor -- rarely speak on the house floor and almost never have i come to the floor two times in one day to speak on one issue. but this is my fourth trip to the floor today on this issue because i consider it so important and so serious. if i could rename this bill i would call it a bill to authorize the use of force in libya. that is what we are doing. we should not kid ourselves. we are authorizing the use of force. we are endorsing the obama war in libya. some see this as weakening our

presence over there. but there is no doubt if you read it carefully we are expanding and giving authority because of the exceptions. the exceptions include search and research, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, refueling, planning, contract labor can still go in, the c.i.a. is in there already, special forces. and paying f it. how can you do that without paying for it? we are there, is will be the first time the president will have received any information from the congress that it's ok to pursue what we are doing. we are supposed to be sending the message that we are in charge of when we go to war an when we pay for this war. we are not supposed lie over and capitulate to what the president wants as we have been for too many years. so there is no doubt that i think the proper vote here, the proper constitutional vote, the proper vote for the best of our national interest, the best vote for peace is to vote this

resolution down just as we voted the previous resolution down. we should prohibit the use o funds. a lot of us complain on is house floor because of the way the president went to war. he didn't come here, he went to nato. but this supports nato. one of the arguments in favor of this bill is we have the exceptions so we don't want to break ties in our aleaningance to nato -- allegiance to nato. that's what we are supposed to be doing. we are supposed to be claiming the sovereignty and responsibilities in the house. we are not supposed to roll over for nato and us united nations. we are supposed to stand up for this country. we are not supposed to go into war under these conditions and under those circumstances. i strongly urge a no vote on this resolution. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minuteto my friend from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: somebody said a while ago we ought to be supporting the arab spring because there is movements towards democracy over there.

we went into libya to help in a humanitarian effort and get rid of muammar gaddafi. who are we supporting? nobody at the white house has come down here and said we are supporting this group of people. we don't know if it's the muslim brotherhood. we don't know if it's al qaeda. we do know there are al qaeda operatives that came from afghanistan fighting with the rebels in libya. are we supporting al qaeda? are we supporting the muslim brotherhood? the muslim brotherhood in egypt has opened up the border, the government of egypt, whatever that is right now, has opened up the border between egypt and gaza. which provides a mechanism for weapons to get into gaza to fire on israel. so before we start supporting a rebel movement and going after somebody like gaddafi, we ought to find out who we arefor. we are spending billions of dollars before this over in a war where w don't even know who we are supporting, and it's in violation of the war powers act

in the constitution. this is something we should not be doing. the president should have come down here and made his case. he should have said what our goals are. he should have said who we are supporting and why are we supporting them? we are in a war against terrorism and we may very well end up with terrorists controlling libya and egypt. and that is a tinderbox we don't want. we get about 35% of our energy from that part of the world and if all hell breaks loose because we have gone with the wrong guys, we've got a real problem in this country economically. and the president ought to be thinking about all that and making his case to the congress in accordance with the constitution and the war powers act before he does it. i yield back the balance of my time. 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 california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this bill purports to cut off funding for combat in

libya. in doing so it simply forbids what the constitution already forbids, the waging of war without explicit congressional authorization. but then it specifically grants to the president what up until now he has completely lacked. congreional authority to engage in every conceivable belligerent act short of actually pulling the trigger. refueling bombers on their way to targets. identifying and selecting targets. guiding munitions to their targets. logistical support. opational planning. these are all acts of war in direct support of belligerence at war and this bill authorizes them. the house has just considered whether to authorize war wit libya. it has specifically, categorically, and decisively rejected it. the president's now on notice that he is in direct defiance of congress. that is the message we need to send today. let's not ent a war through

the backdoor when we have already decided not to interer it through the front. the speaker o tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend from texas, judge gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is true gaddafi's a bad guy. he needs to go. but the problem is for those who say will this mean the end of the bush doctrine? i don't know this president's been enforcing the bush doctrine, but the problem is as my friend, mr. burton, pointed out, we don't know who is going to replace gaddafi. it's not in our national interest to help what may be another iran with khomeini and ahmadinejad come to powe and especially when we are releasing oil at a time when that oil should be saved in case it all goes to blazes in the middle east and we don't have any coming from there.

now, i'm not crazy about the exceptions, either. the search and rescue, intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, operational planning because this administration is probably going to describe everything they do as falling into those ceptions, but it's a step in the right direction. and some have said, and i know their hearts and i know they mean well, we want to support our troops and i don't like it when people say let's back out and cut funding when troops are in harm's way. i have talked to enough troops who want somebody in washington to say, this is insane. don't get us involved. because they are good soldiers and when they get their orders, they are going to salute and go follow through on the orders. we are the body that must step forward and say, enough. mr. president, we are not responble to the arab league, to nato, or to the u.n. we are responsible to the american people. so though i don't like the

exceptions i will vote for this. it's taking a step in the right direction. i 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 yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i intend to vote no on this resolution. we just voted on a resolution on whether or not to authorize in libya and this house overwhelmingly voted no. no to authorizing that. i have been opposed to this action in libya. i have not been persuaded the u.s. has a vital interest there. by the way we were not attacked by gaddafi. i spent two hours in aent with gaddafi in 2003, we were the first congressional delegation, over 38 years, to be there. in fact we were there because he was voluntarily giving up his nuclear arms. i will say there are probably few dictators who are going to do that again after watching what's happening over there. he is a bloody dictator. one of the things i learned, he hates al qaeda. i also think this action vividly demonstrates the weakness of nato, quite frankly. it's a great organization. we appreciate their partnerships, of course.

they are our allies, but it's an antiquated organization. the united states is paying 75% of the cost of nato and nato can't even take out a two-bit dictator like gaddafi? why. because we have enabled our allies, providing their defense for them, for decades. and instead of spending money on their defense as ty said 2% of their g.d.p. they are spending the money on social programs, their money on lower corporate tax rate etc. i would say yes, gaddafi is a bloody dictator. he's a terrorist. he did not attack us. let us remember who left the lockerbie bomber out early as well. we need to get out of libya. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, the speaker, is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. let me say that i'm disappointed that we have reached this point here today. mr. speaker, it didn't have to come to this.

nearly 100 daysgo the president initiated a strike against libya. went out in consultation from -- without consultation from the congress and without prior explanation to the american people. then as now we all supported the removal of the regime of libya, a regime that was slaughtering and is slaughtering its own people. yet rather than seek regime change from the start, the president chose to follow not lead. and pursued a strictly humanitarian mission under the banner of the united nations with no plan for colonel gaddafi's removal. so at the outset we asked some very straightforward questions of the president. why it removing can caffey a part of this mission? what if he doesn't leave? . who are the rebels that we're there helping to fight? how long is this going to last and at what cost and what does

success look like? these re questions that the administration would not or could not answer. under our constitution the commander in chief has authority to take actions necessary to protect our national security. this is an authority of which i in this house respect. but it does not free the president from accountability to the american people, to this congress or to the rule of law. now, whatever your opinion of the war powers resolution may be, the fact is it is the law of the land and simply cannot be ignored. so three weeks ago this house overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution asking the president to explain how this mission is consistent with our national security goals, to justify continuingthis operation without authorization. he responded by telling us he didn't need congress because there are no, quote,

hostilities taking place in libya. well, we soon found out that even his own lawyers don't buy that argument. now, if the commander in chief is going to take our forces into war, he must take ownership of it. if a president believes that missile strikes and drone operations taking place in libya are critical, it's his responsibility to explain to the american people and to seek authorization from this congress. because the president has failed to do that, because he's failed to fuill his oblitions, we are here today. now, make no mistake. i support the removal of the libyan regime. support the president's authority as commander in chief, but when the president chooses to challenge the powers of the congress i, as speaker of the house, will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature.

this bill represents, i believe, a reasonable approach. by allowing our forces to continue playing a limited support role, it would not undermine our nato partners. it would, however, prevent the president from carrying out any further hostilities without congress' approval, and it would exercise congress' constitutional power to provide some much-needed accountability. i believe this is a responsible approach, and i believe this house should support it. i yield back. the spker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. berman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. . berman: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker of the house has made some very legitimate points, but then his conclusion

is so contrary to the points he made. the proposition before us today, mr. mcclintock is right. it is an authorization oa seriesf acts of belligerence, acts of war that by their own definition cannot possibly help us eithe achieve the humanitarian goal of this mission or achieve the goal of the true humanitarian goal of removing gaddafi from power. we are authorizing intelligent-sharing, aerial fueling, operational planning, intelligence gathering, but we are denying the only aspects of this operation that can allow us to achieve that goal, the suppression of air defense systems and the utilization of drones with missiles to stop gaddafi from resuming his effort to massacre his own

people. i understand the argument, you don't buy my notions of our national security interests, you don't see the context of bringing this -- operation to a halt in terms of what it does to the stability of the democracy movements in egypt, in tunisia. you don't see any consequences in terms of syria, the larger middle east, or the damage to the alliance. i understand and accept that argument, but mr. rooney doesn't -- he tries to have it both ways, but he comes up with a proposal that ensures that the mission is alled to continue but by definition cannot achieve its goals. it ithe worst, it is not the reasonable proposal, it is the worst of all solutions. if you're going to authorize an operation that hopes through airpower and other methods, you don't exclude the only parts of that that could possibly achieve this success. if you're against the operation

you stop the funding of the operation. mr. rooney and apparently a number of other members of the majority want to have it both ways. we don't like gaddafi so we want to do something, but we don't want to do anything that could work but we don't want to come against the operation. but the fact is you're ending the operation if this were to become law because our european friends have said very clearly that those parts of this operation that this amendment prohibits, those parts of the operation we cannot undertake if you are not doing it. so why not be straightforward? why not do what a number of colleagues on the other side have called for, stop funding the operation, don't try to have it both ways, ensure the operation defeat and end the operation while still being interested in seeing gadfi go and the operation succeed? i urge a no vote from anyone

who cares about consequences of what they vote on. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee on armed services, the gentleman om california, mr. mckeon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2278. my colleue has set forth the responsible plan that would effectively limit the united states' role in libya. this bill would allow u.s. forces to continue to conduct search and rescue missions, aerial refueling, intelligent, surveillance and reconnaissance and provide operational planning assistance. mr. speaker, this is what nato has told us would allow them to continue to carry out the mission. these are very critical functions. that is all that they have

asked us to do as we move forward, and it helps the president be truthful in saying that we're not engaged in hostilactions. this bill would clearly end funding for all other military missions in libya. of particular concern to many members is the united states' continued engagement in strike and suppression of enemy air defense missions. the president has repeatedly stated that the u.s. is not engaged in hostilities, and the congressional authorization is not necessary to continue our role in this operation. i share with manof my colleagues the view that firing missile at a target in a foreign nation does indeed constute hostile action. this disagreement is at the root of the issue at hand. h.r. 2278 would put an end to that debe by explicitly defining the connelly authorized scope of the u.s. mitary mission in libya. the administration has yet to present congress and the american people with a clear

strategic objective for our involvement in libya. furthermore, to date we have not been informed of a specific end goal under which the military operations would cease. this threatens the effectiveness of our mission and could soon create an unstifiable strain on our military. while they remain engaged in two other theaters of operation critical to our national security interest. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: one minute remains. mr. mckeon: how much do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. mckeon: i'd be happy to yield. mr. dicks: wouldn't you feel better if we could add as the fifth item in this list of things suppression of enemy air defenses? the reason i say that is i think we're going to hava

difficult time doing any of these other missions unless we have suppression, and the -- i was just over there and we were told by the navy that the allies do not have enough suppression to deal with continuing to do these bombing missions without u.s. help. if we could clarify -- mr. mckeon: you just about used up my whole minute. there are -- my good friend from washington, there are a lot of things that would make me feel better. ife could go back and start this whole thing over, there are a lot of things that would make me feel better, but the president has said we are not engaged in hostilities. i think we would agree that when we're firing missiles, when we are having -- 30 seconds? missions with our fighter planes suppressing ground fire, i believe that would be -- most of us would agree that is

hoile. and the nato people, we met with the military from great britain, they told us what we have in here would allow them to continue successfully their missions. so i would -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. the gentleman from -- mr. mckeon: i ask my colleague to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: t chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: may i inquire of the sponsor, mr. rooney, i am the last speaker. then i will yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. smith: thank you. there are a number of arguments about this issue, arguments in favor of ending the mission in libya. and i think the speaker articulated one which is basically we support the idea of the removal of gaddafi and

they support the idea of supporting the people in libya who are asking for a representative government. they just n't like our present process. but that argument really doesn't make sse because if in fact their big complaint is that congress hasn't had the opportunity to authorize this, then the speaker of the house has had by his own admission 0 days to offer that voice, to come up and say, no, we support the mission but here's how we want to limit it and they have not done that. and i agree very strongly with mr. berman's statement, you can't have it both ways. you can't say we would like to remove gaddafi, we'd like to support the libyan people but were going to offer up resolutions that's gng to stop that from happening. now, we can argue back a forth about that process, but clearly the speaker of the house had an option in front of him to deal with that process issue. and this isn't it. as has been pointeout, this will stop what we are doing in libya.

if you support that -- let me just say, i support mr. kucinich in the sense that he's very honest. he don't like what's going on there. he would like it stopped. that's a legitimate position. to stand up and say, yes, we have to support the libyan people, yes, gaddafi should go, we are just going to cut the legs out from underneath the efforts to do that because of a mplicated process argument is not a legitimate point. i want to point out, people are legitimaly concerned of the u.s. being too militant in our approach. i agree that. we cannot be the policemen for the war. we should not always carry the load. but in this case it is a very, very limited mission that we have. for once, nato is actually carrying the balk of the missions. while i agree with one statement that nato should step up and do more, nato is now stepping up and doing more and we want to pull the rug out from the tiny piece we are giving to help to make this mission possible. this is a limited role and we

must recognize that. the speaker also emphasized we would like to have all the answers going in. we want to know what the mission with gaddafi is. initially our mission was clear, stop gaddafi from crushing the forces who were trying to rise up and have a voice in their own government and we did that. incidentally we do have some answers about who these rebels are. yowant to know who they are? look at benghazi. the place that's controlled by the people in opposition to muammar gaddafi. it's not the muslim brotherhood, it's not al qaeda. it's the people libya who wants a representative governnt who is running that place. so let's stop acting like we don't know who these people are. we do have a very good idea who they are and they are deserving of our support. we have a clear limited mission. if we vote for rooney we pull the rug out from under that mission. we put gaddafi in a position to stay in power, and we undermine a group of people o are asking for a legitimate voice

in their government. and keep in mind, again, this is a very limited use of u.s. power and in a very positive way. whatever the process arguments are that brought us to that point, don't let them have an united states look like we don't support people, standing up for the very values that we tunally espouse throughout the world. i urge defeat of this resolution and support what we're doing in libya and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, can i inquire of the time remaining on our side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has four minutes remaining. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to my friend and colleague from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska, m terry, is recognized for one minute. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. and i have during my tenure here voted twice to empower our military to take action. the first time was with afghanistan, and the president came to the congress and made a

powerful case that it was in our national security interest to do so, and i supported that. . then with iraq, the president came to congress, spent a significant amount of time providing evidence, making a case that there was a national security interest. this time however, itas a surprise to me and most of my colleagues that this mission was occurring. there's been no attempt to define what the national security interests are, the united states interest in this military action. and so without that, i can't look my constituents in the eye and tell them why we are in libya right now. and active in military strikes against that nation state. so, the one constitutional power that congress has explicitly is the pursestrings. we are exercising that right. i support that effort to hold --

pull tse strings tight and let's stop the flow of money into this action. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i want to thank mr. rooney anthank my colleagues. i think this has been a very importandebate for this country and for our constitution. i'm opposed to this war and want to end it. i think mr. rooney's bill is a powerful stp in the direction of ending the -- step in the direction of ending the war, but it's not the only step we should take. it's the purse step. the first step is a vote for mr. rooney's. you limit the war, stop the mbat ops. then the secondtep would be to vote on a defense appropriations amendment that would strike all funding for the war. so we take two steps here. the first step today. and we have me of the best

people inhis congress have been in this debate today and they don't agree with mr. rooney's bill, but what they have said is that this bill would end the mission in libya. and it's said if you don't have the ability to suppress, you couldn't continue th the bombing campaign. so tse are people on our side of the aisle who want to defeat this bill. they have made the argument, i think, as to why we should pass it. i want to thank mr. rooney for his leadership and i urge a vote in favor of . rooney's bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. thgentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, we have heard a lot argument today and we had the great debate. a debate we should have been having over the last 100 days or so. one that could have been spurred on by the administration for coming here and making the arguments why we should authorize or should not authorize hostilities --

>> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. those members in the back of the chamber please discontinue your conversation so we can complete this debate. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: the president had the opportunity to come and make the case to this body and chose not . the war pows act is clear, he's violated that law. some have said it's unconstitutional, but the courts have never weighed in on it. so it is the law of the land and one we have to abide by. but we can send resolution after resolution to the senate saying that we don't agree, we don't authorize, in the end the power that we have is the power of the purse, as mr. terry just said. we have to exercise that power in this house and say we aren't going to spend money for hostilities in libya. we heard the mission, if you want to take out gaddafi, or if you want to free the libyan people and give them the liberty we deserve, number one, it was never the mission to begin with to take out gaddafi.

that has somehow mored of -- morphed over time. we don't even know who the pele are that we are supposedly setting free. without that debate and without that argument the president has failed to make, and i appreciate the debate we have had today because i thin it's been very helpful. all we can do is say until the president comes and makes that case and gets authorization, he won't get funds. at the same time, responsibly saying to our nato allies, we'll support you in the rear, but we are not engaging in hostile acts. wi >> next live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then live at 9:00 a.m. eastern, chief justice john roberts speaks at the fourth circuit judicial conference. after that, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius talks about new labeling for tobacco packaging. c-span has launched a new easy to naff gait website for

politics in the 2012 presidential race, with the latest events from the campaign trail, bioinformation on the candidates, twitter feeds and faceback updates from candidates and political reporters, and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c-span.org/campaign2012. and our series of interviews with republican presidential candidates continues sunday night with texas representative ron paul. he discusses his previous presidential bids, his strategy for winning the g.o.p. 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 at 9:30 eastern and pacific on c-span. .