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.

mr. mcclintock is right. it is an authorization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war that by their own definition cannot possibly help us either 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 refueling, 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,

mr. mcclintock of california's, eloquent defense of the war powers act and urge the house to adopt mr.herman's amendment and i urge yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition to the amendment? does any member seek discussion in relation to the amendment? the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. dicks: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. further proceed thonings question -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in the congressional record offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman is recognized for

mr. mcclintock of california. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of his resolution. we need to be crystal clear on this, without prior congressional authorization, under the war powers act the president may only commit armed forces to hostilities for 60 days if there is a direct attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. there was none. so there is no 60-day clock and the unprovoked attack on libya from day one constituted an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance and the question is, what are we going to do about that? if the president felt there was moral justification to attack libya, he was constitutionally required to make that case to the congress and to get its authorization. he did not. now, the argument we hear against this resolution comes down to this. we're already committed, it's too late for congress to order a

mr. mcclintock is right.orization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war that by their own definition cannot ssibly help us eitherchieve 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 refueling, 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 tunia. you don't see any consequences in terms osyria, the larger middle east, or the damage to the alliance. i understand and accept that argument, but mr. rooney doesn't

mr. mcclintock of california. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of his resolution. we need to be crystal clear on this, without prior congressional authorization, under the war powers act the president may only commit armed forces to hostilities for 60 days if there is a direct attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. there was none. so there is no 60-y clock and e unprovoked attack on libya from day one constituted an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance and the question is, what are we gog to do about that? if the president felt there was moral justification to attack libya, he was constitutionally required to make that case to the congress and to get its authorization. he did not. now, the argument we hear against this resolution comes down to this. we're already committed, it's too late for congress to order a withd

mr. mcclintock is right. it is an authorization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war that by their own definition cannot possibly help us either 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 refueling, 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,