[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 79 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3990-H3998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 292, REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF 
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
              H. CON. RES. 51, LIBYA WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 294

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 292) 
     declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or 
     maintain the presence of units and members of the United 
     States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other 
     purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except one hour of 
     debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
     51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the 
     War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed 
     Forces from Libya, if called up by the chair of the Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs or her designee. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The concurrent resolution shall 
     be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by 
     Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida or her designee and 30 
     minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his 
     designee. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution to its adoption without 
     intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from South 
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. For the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 294 provides for a 
closed rule for consideration of two measures, House Concurrent 
Resolution 51 and House Resolution 292.
  This rule allows for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
51, consistent with the War Powers Act, and provides for an alternative 
measure introduced by the Speaker of the House. I support the Speaker's 
resolution and the ability to have up-or-down votes on both 
resolutions.
  This approach is consistent with the Speaker's and our conference's 
goal of a more open and transparent process, allowing the House to work 
its will on both resolutions. Members can vote for one of the 
resolutions, both of the resolutions, or neither of them.
  The underlying legislation addresses the administration's actions in 
Libya. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered U.S. 
military intervention in Libya as a part of a multinational coalition. 
Well over 60 days later--let me say that one more time--over 60 days 
later the President has still not asked for, nor has he received, 
authorization from Congress to commit troops to such action.
  Mr. Speaker, article I of our Constitution states that Congress, and 
only Congress, has the power to declare war. This point was made best 
in 2007 by then-Senator Barack Obama, who said: ``The President does 
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a 
military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual 
or imminent threat to the Nation.''
  Just in case we missed that, the current President got it right in 
2007 when he was a Senator. I want to quote him one more time. He said 
that ``the President does not have power under the Constitution to 
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not 
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''
  While the United States must play offense in the war on terror, and 
we should not have to wait for threats to materialize before acting. It 
is not clear, it is simply not clear that Libya posed a threat to our 
Nation that justified the use of troops, the United States' troops.
  It is undeniable that Qadhafi is one of the most notorious terrorists 
of our time, and the world will be a better place when he is gone. But 
at the same time, there is no shortage of dictators who should be 
removed from power. Syria's Assad is butchering his own people as we 
speak. Iran, under Ahmadinejad, sponsors terrorism around the world, he 
persecutes religious minorities, and is working to develop a nuclear 
bomb.

[[Page H3991]]

  Moreover, the President has not outlined the purpose or the scope of 
our action in Libya. Is the objective the removal of Qadhafi from 
power? If so, who will replace Qadhafi? And what assurances do the 
American people have that the alternative will be any better than 
Qadhafi?
  House Resolution 292 accomplishes four objectives. First, it 
establishes that the President of the United States, President Obama, 
has not asked for congressional authorization for a military 
involvement in Libya, and that Congress has not granted such authority. 
Second, the resolution reasserts that Congress has the option to 
withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed 
Forces, including such activities in Libya. Third, the resolution 
requires the President to provide within 14 days information to 
Congress which should have been provided from the start. Fourth, the 
resolution reaffirms the vote that Congress took just last week that 
says that there should be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya unless 
they are there to rescue American troops.
  It is unfortunate, it is very unfortunate that our President has made 
this resolution necessary. Yet at the same time, we are mindful that 
the congressional action must consider our responsibilities to our 
allies, including those that are currently in harm's way. America keeps 
its promises. We keep our commitments. And we stand by our soldiers and 
our allies. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the House spoke quite clearly on the question 
of Libya during the debate on the fiscal year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act. By a vote of 415-5 on a bipartisan amendment offered 
by Congressman Conyers, the House voted against U.S. deploying ground 
troops in Libya. So the House has clearly stated its position on U.S. 
military operations in Libya.
  But that vote did not touch upon two serious matters, each very much 
connected to the other. First is the fact that the President did not 
seek a congressional authorization for a U.S. military operation in 
Libya in coordination with our NATO allies; nor did the leadership of 
this House insist on one or pursue one.
  Second, under the War Powers Resolution, the President has not sought 
the authorization of Congress during the required time period to 
maintain U.S. Armed Forces in military operations in Libya. Simply put, 
under the War Powers Resolution, the President must obtain 
congressional authorization for military action that lasts longer than 
60 days. If Congress does not authorize military action, the President 
must withdraw troops within 30 days.
  The 60-day authorization deadline expired on May 20, and the 30-day 
withdrawal deadline expires on June 19. Therefore, the Congress now has 
the responsibility to call for the end of U.S. military operations in 
the absence of a clearly defined authorization for U.S. military 
operations in Libya.

                              {time}  0920

  Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee considered two 
resolutions: one offered by Representatives Kucinich, Burton and 
Capuano, which clearly addresses the violation of the War Powers 
Resolution and would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces from 
military operations in Libya. If passed by the House and the Senate, it 
would have the force of law. The other, offered by the Speaker of the 
House, is a simple H. Res, a nonbinding resolution, a document which is 
simply advisory in nature and relevant only as a statement of the 
House, which reprimands the President for failing to seek proper 
authorization for our military operations in Libya, asks for reports to 
provide the House with necessary information regarding national 
security interests and costs of the Libya operation, and then does 
nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. It again shirks the responsibility of 
this House and this Congress as a whole to either take up and pass an 
authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya, or pass a 
resolution requiring a withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to U.S. 
military operations in Libya.
  Mr. Speaker, it's easy to complain, it's easy to lay blame, but it 
takes leadership to own up to our own responsibilities and take 
appropriate action, and it takes leadership to handle this process in a 
responsible way. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not do that. 
The Republican leadership rushed their resolution through the Rules 
Committee without any hearings and without any markup, violating their 
3-day pledge to allow people to read the bill. So much for the new, 
open House of Representatives.
  This would be sad, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so important. War is a 
serious issue. Whether we are sending unmanned drones, armed jets or 
American soldiers into harm's way, war must be debated and considered 
by the Congress in a responsible manner. The Republican leadership, 
however, is not treating this issue the way it deserves to be treated. 
This debate deserves better, quite frankly. The American people deserve 
better.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Just one clarification: The concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 51, does not become law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I am honored to be here with the newly 
elected freshman member of the First District of South Carolina, Tim 
Scott. I appreciate his leadership on the Rules Committee. The people 
of South Carolina are very proud of his service. The people of the 
First District of South Carolina are noted for their strong support of 
the military. They elect Members to Congress like Tim Scott who work 
for a strong military, a strong national defense in the tradition of 
Ronald Reagan, of peace through strength.
  In the First District, the Congressman has the Citadel, the military 
college of South Carolina; the Charleston Air Force Base, the Naval 
Weapons Station, SPAWARS. In fact, I actually grew up there adjacent to 
a U.S. Coast Guard base, so we know the value of a strong military.
  Personally, in fact, Congressman Scott's brother was the Command 
Sergeant Major at Landstuhl, one of the largest military hospitals in 
the world in Germany. Through his Army experience and family 
connection, we know that Tim Scott is for a strong military and 
understands as I do how important it is that military force should only 
be used when it is in America's vital interests.
  I have the perspective of being the son of a World War II veteran, a 
Flying Tiger. I served 31 years in the Army National Guard. I have four 
sons currently serving in the military. I want our military to be used 
properly. When the President is right, as he was to follow the advice 
of General David Petraeus to add troops, the surge in Afghanistan, the 
resulting success that we see in Afghanistan today, we're happy to 
support him. But this resolution is very important, because we have not 
seen from the President of the United States, there has been a failure 
of leadership in regard to explaining why military forces are being 
used in Libya.
  I'm very pleased with the resolution. The key point that the American 
people need to know is declaring that the President shall not deploy, 
establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United 
States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. To put troops on the 
ground, I believe, is highly irresponsible. A case has not been made of 
why this is in America's vital interests. We know there is great 
conflict as to who the rebels are. What are these rebels? Are these al 
Qaeda elements that are attacking the Qadhafi forces? The Qadhafi 
forces themselves? What would happen if we got involved with troops on 
the ground? These issues need to be resolved on behalf of the American 
military, on behalf of the American people, and we urge through this 
resolution that the answers be provided to the American people, to the 
American military, to our allies, why are we there? What is America's 
vital interest?

[[Page H3992]]

  And so I urge support of the rule and commend the freshman 
Congressman from South Carolina for his leadership.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, just so we're all clear here, under the War Powers Act, if a 
concurrent resolution is passed demanding that the troops are removed 
from a particular country, then they will be removed, if you believe 
that the War Powers Act carries any weight, and I believe that the War 
Powers Act is relevant here. That's what the resolution by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does.
  What the resolution my friends in the Republican leadership have 
drafted does is nothing. Your resolution doesn't even have to go to the 
Senate. It won't go to the Senate. It directs the President to do a 
whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, he can ignore, because this 
bill doesn't mean anything. What this is--and let's be clear about what 
this is--is this is a way for some of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to kind of cover their back sides, to be able to say to their 
constituents, We did something tough on Libya. Let me read to you how 
tough the language is in the bill that the Speaker of the House has 
drawn up. A lot of tough language. It sounds good. Except when you look 
a little bit more closely, you realize that this is an H. Res, which 
doesn't mean a thing.
  So if you're into symbolism, if you're into therapy, you know, vote 
for the Boehner resolution. If you are interested in action, if you are 
interested in actually living up to our responsibilities as lawmakers 
in the United States Congress, then I would suggest that you look at 
the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has drafted.
  You can talk all you want about how the Republican alternative here 
is somehow meaningful, but it really isn't. Again, I shouldn't be 
surprised. No one should be surprised here, because most of what they 
have done since they assumed control of the Congress has been 
meaningless, has been symbolic. Whether it's dealing with health care 
or jobs, which they don't want to talk about, you name it, a lot of it 
has been mostly symbolic. I think on the issue of war, we should take 
it more seriously and be more honest with the American people as to 
what we're doing.
  At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are confronted with today is not primarily a 
question of foreign policy or even of war policy. We are presented with 
a question of constitutional law and of the prerogatives of the United 
States Congress. Shall the President, like the King of England, be a 
dictator in foreign policy? Shall the President have the unfettered 
right to take this country to war without so much as a ``by your 
leave'' from Congress as the King of England could do without 
authorization from Parliament?
  The authors of our Constitution answered that question in the 
negative. They said, ``No, we don't trust kings, we don't trust 
executives to make a decision to go to war. We want that to be the 
prerogative of the people as represented by the Congress.''

                              {time}  0930

  A whole series of Presidents since World War II have forgotten that, 
starting with Harry Truman in the Korean War and Lyndon Johnson in the 
Vietnam War right up to the present.
  Now, there are reasons for this, and I will go into that when I speak 
on the Kucinich resolution a little later. I would simply observe now I 
am going to vote for the Boehner resolution, but I am also going to 
vote for the Kucinich resolution.
  The Boehner resolution is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't deal 
with the basic problem. The Boehner resolution says the President has 
failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. 
security interests for current United States military activities, that 
is true. Frankly, I do not understand why we are in Libya.
  The Boehner resolution then says the President shall transmit to the 
House of Representatives all kinds of information, basically saying why 
we are there, and that's good. You should have done that before we went 
there, but it's good that we demand this information now. But then the 
Boehner resolution stops.
  All it demands of the President is that he gives us his reasons. And 
his reasons, maybe we will agree with him, maybe we won't. Maybe they 
are sufficient, and maybe they are not.
  Then it says, ``Findings.
  ``(a) The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, 
authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the 
United States Armed Forces in Libya.''
  That's true.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  ``(b) Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding 
for any unauthorized use of the U.S. Armed Forces, including for 
unauthorized activities regarding Libya.''
  That's also true, but so what. It doesn't direct anything. It doesn't 
say that what the President did was outside his powers. It doesn't 
direct that the activity stop. It doesn't do anything. I think we 
should do something, because if in this situation we do not reclaim 
congressional powers, I can think of no set of circumstances under 
which the President cannot go to war without going to Congress first, 
no set of circumstances. And that turns the Constitution and the 
intentions of our Framers and the intentions of our whole 
constitutional law system on its head.
  Therefore, I urge a vote of ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a 
vote of ``yes'' on the Kucinich resolution, which, unlike the Boehner 
resolution, actually does something about the situation we find 
ourselves in.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. You know, this could not be any more serious. It's 
important for us to debate what our servicemembers are doing in foreign 
conflicts.
  The War Powers Act, it is important to make sure that the President 
understands from Congress exactly what we are willing to do with our 
American troops and where we are willing to fight.
  But I do agree he has to give us his reasons. In Desert Storm, we 
knew why we were there. We knew what our role was, we knew what our 
goals were, we knew what our exit strategy was.
  These are the very reasons that we are looking for before we 
appropriate funds, before we put our troops at risk, before any boots 
go to the ground, before this conflict escalates any further, before a 
new government comes into play, we expect these answers to be given to 
us. We expect the President to do his job, to show leadership, to 
address Congress and explain why he is committing American 
servicemembers.
  So this is very serious. It is very serious and it's long overdue. 
The President should have come here first. He certainly should have 
come here within 60 days. It is long overdue, it is very serious, and 
the time to demand answers is now.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I hear a lot of talk on the other side about the Boehner resolution 
requires the President to do this, it directs him to do that, he must 
do this, he shall do this. But the way you have presented this in this 
H. Res. form, the President doesn't have to do anything. So let's not 
fool ourselves, and let's not fool the American people that somehow 
this is meaningful.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This could be no more a somber debate than 
what we are doing here today, and I thank the manager, Mr. McGovern, 
and the gentleman from South Carolina for recognizing, through the 
leadership of our House, that the American people must be engaged in 
the constitutional duties that have been set out for the three branches 
of government.
  Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided between Congress 
and the President, and among other relevant grants, Congress has the 
power to declare war and raise and support armed forces while the 
President is the Commander in Chief.
  The congressional duties fall under article 1, section 8, and the 
Commander

[[Page H3993]]

in Chief can relate his or her duties to article 2, section 2.
  It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the 
President power to utilize the armed services to repel attacks against 
the United States. But there has long been a challenge or controversy 
over whether he or she is constitutionally authorized to send forces 
into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or 
congressional authorization.
  And so here we are today indicating that it is important for the 
Commander in Chief, no matter how much respect there is, to be able to 
respond to the call of the Congress. There are now two resolutions that 
swirl around the violence and horrific acts in Libya. Compounding the 
problem is a continued violence, an assault on the people of Libya.
  So for a moment let me focus on General Qadhafi to ask him the 
question, is he reasoned, and does he recognize that the slaughter of 
his people must stop? The President of South Africa engaged in peace 
talks with General Qadhafi, and many of us thought that the white flag 
would be raised and that there would be an opportunity for resolution. 
We see that not coming.
  So my message to General Qadhafi is to stop this senseless and 
violent war, to allow your people to accumulate the privileges of human 
dignity, that is to be able to live in peace and hopefully to secure 
democratic rights for themselves. But at the same time we in the United 
States cannot stand by and watch as violence proceeds. We must have 
procedure. We must have process.
  I believe the Boehner amendment gives at least some tracking as to 
what you are asking the President for, but I still quarrel with the 
debate and the question as to whether or not that is enough.
  I am supporting this rule so that we can move forward to begin to 
debate this question of the War Powers Resolution, and it is important 
that the branches of government understand you cannot roll over the 
Constitution. The Constitution does not allow us to ignore the Supreme 
Court's decisions on war. It does not allow us, in essence, to ignore 
the responsibilities of Congress.
  So I rise today to support this debate and to support the premise 
that Congress must exercise its authority to declare war.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on 
his management of this extraordinarily important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I listened to my friend 
from Worcester. I was upstairs, and I want to express my appreciation 
to him for his very sincere institutional commitment, his commitment to 
our recognizing the preeminence of the first branch of government, and 
the fact that we, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Boehner, all of us, Democrat 
and Republican alike, recognize that the President of the United 
States, under article 2 and article 1, has the responsibility, the 
responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to, in fact, engage the United States 
Congress.
  Now, I think that a little clarification may need to be made at this 
juncture because, as I listen to the debate there seems to be quite a 
bit of confusion. People often talk about the ``War Powers Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as the ``War Powers Act.'' There 
was a War Powers Resolution that passed that does not have the power 
and the strength of an enacted law.

                              {time}  0940

  Similarly, Mr. Kucinich's resolution, which we will be considering 
and this rule makes in order, is a measure that will not have the force 
of law. Yes, it is true that it is an H. Con. Res, meaning that it will 
be considered in the Senate as well, assuming it passes this House, but 
it does not have the force of law. And no one, Mr. Speaker, should try 
to make that claim.
  Similarly, the H. Res. that Mr. Boehner has offered I personally 
believe is more responsible because the notion of our calling for 
withdrawal within 2 weeks is something that virtually everyone has said 
cannot be done. That's why I believe that Mr. Boehner's resolution is a 
more responsible one than the one offered by my good friend from Ohio. 
But it, too, does not have the force of law.
  So, as we proceed with this debate, I think it's very important for 
us to recognize that the terms that are being used need to be used 
correctly.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just, again, we want to make sure everybody has got the right 
terminology correct and we are clarifying the Record. The H. Res. that 
Mr. Boehner has introduced, that my friends on the Republican side are 
touting as something substantial, gives the appearance of doing 
something, when in reality it does nothing.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that the characterization that my friend just made of 
Mr. Boehner's resolution would also have to apply to the resolution 
offered by our friend from Ohio. We're talking about resolutions here. 
We're not talking about measures that have the power of law. This is 
not an act. These are resolutions, which are statements being made by 
this institution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I'm sorry that the gentleman has 
such a low opinion of the War Powers Resolution, but I think it carries 
more weight than he does.
  But I would again say to my colleagues that what Mr. Boehner has 
proposed here has all this tough language in it requiring the President 
to do this, directing the President to do that, when, in fact, if we 
pass this, the President is under the obligation to do nothing.
  At this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, because the Constitution vests the 
authority to declare war in the Congress, I oppose the administration's 
decision to dispatch American troops into hostilities in Libya without 
coming here first. I think that was an error. But because I take those 
constitutional obligations very seriously and because each of us should 
take them very seriously, I oppose this rule and the underlying 
resolution from Speaker Boehner.
  I find it ironic that, at a time when the institution is trying to 
assert its rightful constitutional place, the Speaker has proposed a 
resolution which is wholly ineffective and purely symbolic. This 
resolution pursues a gravely important objective in a rather frivolous 
and ineffective way.
  If we believe that the conduct of a military operation is 
inappropriate for the country, there are tools available to us under 
the Constitution. Each one of those tools, whether it involves ceasing 
appropriations or involves other types of remedies, requires the 
consent of both the House and the Senate. To be effective, we must be 
bicameral. And to be bicameral, we have to put a resolution on the 
floor, the passage of which would lead to consideration by the Senate. 
The Boehner resolution, by its own terms, does not do that.
  So the question the Members ought to be asking themselves here, 
whether they are for or against the incursion in Libya, whether they 
think it should cease or continue, is: What is the effect of passing 
the Boehner resolution?
  As a practical and legal matter, the effect is nothing--nothing. All 
of the items the President would be directed to do, any of the steps 
the President would be prohibited from taking are meaningless if the 
Boehner resolution passes because the Boehner resolution does not 
contemplate being considered by the Senate.
  So I would offer this to Members, that if they are looking for a 
resolution that, in fact, has effect and meaning, Mr. Kucinich's 
resolution has real effect and meaning because it is a due exercise of 
the constitutional authority of the Congress.
  The Speaker's resolution, which I take certainly in good faith, has 
none of that effectiveness and none of that practical consequence. So I 
would urge

[[Page H3994]]

a ``no'' vote on the rule precisely because of the principle of 
congressional authority.
  If you believe that we should exercise our constitutional authority, 
then let's really exercise it. Let's put something before the body that 
has real and practical meaning.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left 
continue to call House resolutions frivolous and meaningless. My good 
friend Mr. McGovern himself just last term had House Resolution 278, 
Global Securities Priorities Resolution.
  The fact of the matter is the House needs to position itself so the 
American people understand what this House is trying to convey to the 
President of the United States. The fact of the matter is this 
President continues to do things that, as a Senator, he said were 
inconsistent with the Constitution. So we are making sure that this 
House and the people who voted in this House are represented in the 
public forum.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  (Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about 
our Constitution and the specific role that it grants this Congress.
  My constituents back in the Third Congressional District of South 
Carolina know that I carry a United States Constitution with me every 
day, and the first time I spoke on this floor, it was to read a portion 
of this great document. Specifically, I read the article that we're 
talking about today, Article I, section 8, clause 11, the enumerated 
power of Congress and of Congress, alone, to declare war.
  Our Founders did not give that right to the executive branch. They 
invested that responsibility with us. Now, previous Congresses have 
delegated some of that responsibility with the War Powers Resolution. 
That's what's being used by this President. But I think the time has 
come for us to have the debate about the wisdom of that and the 
constitutional obligation our Founders defined for Congress.
  Over the past few years, our country has seen a renewed appreciation 
for the Constitution, a recognition of the wisdom and divine guidance 
our Founding Fathers had when they crafted this sacred document. The 
Constitution lists our rights, these rights which were given us 
directly by God, but also contains the mechanisms to protect our rights 
from being trampled upon by man.
  Among the most important of these protections is the separation of 
powers. Seeing firsthand the tyranny that can arise from a corrupt 
centralized power, our Founding Fathers sought to divide the power of 
government into three independent branches that serve as checks on one 
another.
  Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress need to know: What is the national 
interest at stake in Libya? The President cites humanitarian needs, 
regional stability, and supporting the international community as his 
justification. I do not believe that these reasons suffice as national 
security interests. We did not go into Libya with a clear, attainable 
objective. The risks and costs do not appear to be fully analyzed.
  As the President said, we would only be in Libya for days, not 
months. We've been there days. As a matter of fact, we've been there 73 
days. Seventy-three days after we've gotten involved, we still don't 
have that answer. We don't know who we're supporting. We don't know 
whether we have a viable end game, and we don't have a congressional 
declaration of war or an authorization of force.
  And yet this President chooses to continue to risk American lives, 
American servicemen and -women, and he continues to spend American 
treasure at the whims of the United Nations. This President should not 
be able to simply have wars of choice. He said this action in Libya 
would be limited.
  Our troops have, once again, as always, performed admirably and done 
the job the President gave them to do. But we now have to do ours.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. Only Congress has the 
power to declare war. If this Congress allows our President to make 
wars of choice without the rule of law to guide him, we will be just as 
guilty in not upholding our constitutional obligations.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague, Mr. Scott, talked about the fact that I have supported 
House resolutions in the past and that, therefore, we should have more 
respect for the document that Mr. Boehner has put together. I have no 
problem with House resolutions. They state the views and the beliefs of 
Members of the House of Representatives.
  But what I have a problem with is anybody coming to the floor and 
holding up the Boehner resolution and saying that it does something 
that it does not. What the Boehner resolution simply does is it just 
expresses the view of Congress. Even though it has pretty strong words 
in it, it doesn't require the President to do anything. He doesn't have 
to do anything if this thing passes.
  The other thing I want to say, the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee came on the floor here and just kind of pooh-poohed the 
War Powers Resolution as if it were just some other mere resolution. 
Quite frankly, I am stunned by his characterization. It is astonishing 
to me that he would come on the floor and say such a thing.
  The fact of the matter is the War Powers Resolution is a joint 
resolution of Congress, passed by the House and the Senate. It was 
vetoed, and then it was overridden. It has the power of law. It is not 
just a mere resolution. So let's not put this on the same level as what 
the Speaker of the House has brought to this floor. It is two different 
things.
  What Mr. Kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that 
Congress has under the War Powers Resolution. This is serious stuff. 
This is important stuff. If we are going to get our terminology 
straight, we ought to get it straight.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rushed, hyper-
partisan process that we are watching today on a very serious issue of 
war resolution. It is absolutely a given that Congress has a role to 
play in terms of the President's action that it should be scrutinized 
and that we should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. Our Armed 
Services Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, holding 
administration officials' feet to the fire on those very questions. We 
had a hearing yesterday.
  The fact of the matter is, though, just because Congress has the 
right to weigh in doesn't mean that we should pass a resolution for 
resolution sake. The batting average of Congress in terms of rushed 
resolutions, frankly, folks, is not very good. The Gulf of Tonkin 
Resolution was rushed through the Congress, and we know now today that 
historians have uncovered the fact that misinformation was presented to 
the Congress. The Iraq War Resolution in 2002 was rushed through this 
Congress with bad information.
  And we are now seeing today language which was drafted literally 
overnight being presented to the Members of this body and being asked 
to weigh in in a deliberative fashion. This is a polemic we are voting 
on. This is not a carefully balanced, bipartisan process which the 
people of this country and the people who wear the uniform of this 
country deserve.
  If you read the statement of policy, it is devoid of any of the lead-
up to the President's decision which included a resolution by the Arab 
League on March 12 to impose a no-fly zone; the U.N. Security Council 
on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone; and on March 1, the United States 
Senate voted unanimously, not 51 percent, not 81 percent, not 91 
percent, 100 percent in support of a no-fly zone, a Republican and 
Democratic bipartisan resolution calling on the President to do exactly 
what he is doing today.
  Now, again, there is no question, 70 days is a long time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. COURTNEY. It is longer than certainly it was originally presented 
to

[[Page H3995]]

this Congress; but the fact of the matter is this resolution, which was 
drafted in a partisan fashion, is so disappointing to the people who 
care so profoundly about whether or not the decisions on war and peace 
are actually going to be deliberated, debated, and voted on in a 
serious fashion. We are left with this truncated process that is, 
again, almost an insult to the people of this country.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we 
are doing here today, the gentleman to the left got it wrong. The 
bottom line is that Members of the House of Representatives have a 
choice. They can do one of two or three things. They can vote for House 
Resolution 292, or they can vote for Concurrent Resolution 51. They can 
do both, or they can do neither.
  The fact of the matter is, to trivialize or to belittle the process 
we are undertaking on behalf of the American people ought to give us 
cause to pause and ask ourselves: Who is playing the games?
  We want the President of the United States to abide by the 
Constitution. You've heard Democrats and Republicans agree this morning 
on one clear fact: he didn't; and that's why we are here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the very beginning that Mr. McGovern 
and I don't often agree on issues, but we do agree that this is a very 
serious issue that we are dealing with today. And yesterday in the 
Rules Committee, all of us dealt with this in a very serious way.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world. A major 
part of what makes us so great is that we are a Nation of laws and not 
of men, and our rule of law is based on God's laws and our 
Constitution. Indeed, each one of us in Congress takes an oath to 
uphold the Constitution when we take our office. The President and Vice 
President, as well as members of the Cabinet, do the same thing.
  We are here today to debate a rule and two resolutions related to the 
inattention of the President to the Constitution; and I dare say that 
none of us takes any joy in this, but we feel compelled by our 
dedication to our founding document to do this because we love our 
country. By doing all that we can to safeguard the constitutional 
powers granted to Congress, we are doing our part to keep the United 
States great and strong.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about what is not at issue 
today. This debate is not about our troops. We owe a huge debt of 
gratitude to our men and women in the military and their families. The 
troops do what they are sworn to do, what the law requires them to do: 
obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. The troops are doing their 
duty. By refusing to get congressional authorization for military 
action in Libya, it appears that their Commander in Chief is not.
  The Constitution was designed to be a check on the power of our 
government, hence the term ``enumerated powers.'' Each of the three 
branches has very limited powers with Congress having its own unique 
role and powers, one of which, an important one of which, is the power 
to declare war.
  My focus this morning will be on the abrogation of the constitutional 
and statutorial responsibility by the President in regard to his 
actions on Libya. In other words, the authorization to use military 
force is given to the President by this body and none other. And it is 
in accordance with our Constitution that we are here asserting our 
sworn constitutional duty and telling the President he does not have 
the support nor the authority that he claims to have in order to 
continue military operations in Libya.
  I have often urged people to read Orwell's book ``1984'' because the 
language used by President Obama in particular on the Libya issue to 
muddy the waters is so reminiscent of the language used in that book 
about a country where the government controls everything, including the 
minds of the people, partly by the use of language that is completely 
distorted.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read the letter that President Obama sent to 
Congress. He should have come in person to make his case, but even then 
I doubt we would agree to continue operations in Libya. The letter that 
the President sent does not even begin to comply with the requirements 
of the War Powers Resolution. Let me read parts of it and enter the 
entire letter into the Record, Mr. Speaker.
  Here is how the letter begins: ``On March 21, I reported to the 
Congress of the United States, pursuant to a request from the Arab 
League and authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had 
acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by deploying 
U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the Qadhafi regime. As 
you know, over these last 2 months, the U.S. role in this operation to 
enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 has become more limited, 
yet remains important.''
  Here is where I want to get into this convoluted language.

                              {time}  1000

  Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I wish to express my 
support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry, 
McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm 
that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both 
branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations 
of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.
  Mr. Speaker, this is doublespeak of the worst kind--a resolution 
drafted, never introduced or passed, which would confirm that Congress 
supports the U.S. mission. The President is dreaming when he talks 
about this language.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate: This debate is not about our 
troops; it's about our Constitution. Our men and women in uniform are 
doing their duty by following orders. They make me and the rest of us 
very proud. We are a blessed Nation to have such men and women in the 
military.
  This is about our oath to protect and defend the Constitution, about 
the checks and balances our Founding Fathers had in mind when they 
broke away from an imperial monarchy. I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule.

                      Letter From President Obama

       On March 21, I reported to the Congress that the United 
     States, pursuant to a request from the Arab League and 
     authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had 
     acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by 
     deploying U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the 
     Qaddafi regime. As you know, over these last 2 months, the 
     U.S. role in this operation to enforce U.N. Security Council 
     Resolution 1973 has become more limited, yet remains 
     important. Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I 
     wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution 
     drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, 
     and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports 
     the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united 
     in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the 
     Libyan people for political reform and self-government.
       The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was 
     conducted under the command of the United States Africa 
     Command. By April 4, however, the United States had 
     transferred responsibility for the military operations in 
     Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and 
     the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the 
     coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has 
     consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led 
     operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and 
     search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted 
     in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support 
     of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes 
     by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly 
     defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's 
     efforts.
       While we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the 
     NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success 
     of international efforts to protect civilians from the 
     actions of the Qaddafi regime. I am grateful for the support 
     you and other Members in Congress have demonstrated for this 
     mission and for our brave service members, as well as your 
     strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime. Congressional 
     action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. 
     commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a 
     Resolution is also important in the context of our 
     constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of 
     purpose among the political branches on this important 
     national security matter. It

[[Page H3996]]

     has always been my view that it is better to take military 
     action, even in limited actions such as this, with 
     Congressional engagement, consultation, and support.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
her remarks, much of which I agree with--and I don't always agree with 
her. I especially appreciate her emphasis on the importance of the War 
Powers Resolution and how it applies here.
  I again want to emphasize the importance of the War Powers Resolution 
because I was really surprised by the way the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee kind of diminished what the War Powers Resolution 
is all about. I want to read to you and read to my colleagues a section 
from a briefing paper that the Congressional Research Service put 
together. Let me just read this part here:
  ``Section 1 establishes the title `The War Powers Resolution.' The 
law is frequently referred to as the `War Powers Act,' the title of the 
measure passed by the Senate. Although the latter is not technically 
correct, it does serve to emphasize that the War Powers Resolution 
embodied in a joint resolution, which complies with constitutional 
requirements for lawmaking, is a law.''
  What I find puzzling is that we're all talking about the importance 
of the War Powers Resolution, and my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are saying, Well, that's why you need to support the Boehner H. 
Res, which, again, does nothing. I mean we could do a press release, 
and it would have the same impact that the resolution Mr. Boehner has 
introduced would have on the President of the United States and, 
unfortunately, on the President of the United States to do certain 
things.
  Again, I want to emphasize that there is a War Powers Resolution. It 
is law. It is important that we understand that and understand we have 
a role in that. What Mr. Kucinich is trying to do is to assert the 
proper congressional role with regard to War Powers Resolution. What my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is, I guess, 
either provide cover for Members so they don't have to vote for Mr. 
Kucinich's resolution or to make a statement, but it doesn't really do 
anything.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Speaker Boehner for raising this 
important issue today before the House.
  I cannot agree more with the Speaker that the President has failed to 
explain to the Nation the purpose and goals of our military operation 
in Libya. The Speaker's resolution rightly demands answers from the 
President with regard to U.S. security interests and military 
objectives in our engagement in Libya. I would go even further than 
that to suggest that the President has been in violation of the law and 
has set out specific responses from Congress.
  But let's be clear: Congress must engage in a full, open and honest 
debate about sending our brave men and women into harm's way, into 
combat. We owe that to them, and we owe that to the American people. 
The Founders intended such a debate when they granted Congress the 
power to declare war.
  The President's complete failure to consult with Congress and receive 
specific authority as required by the War Powers Act and by the 
Constitution leads to only one conclusion: that President Obama is in 
violation of the Constitution and the authority under the War Powers 
Act as well.
  The United States Congress cannot now sit idly by any longer as the 
President refuses to abide by his constitutional and his legal 
requirements. So, in conclusion, I believe that Congress must hold this 
President accountable, and the Speaker's resolution is a first step in 
that direction.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank my friend and Rules Committee 
member, Mr. Scott, for the opportunity to speak in support of this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we are already fighting a war on two fronts--Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Our troops and resources are already spread very thin.
  On March 19, the President announced that U.S. military forces had 
joined with our NATO allies to commence operations in Libya. The 
President did this not only without congressional authorization but 
without even consulting Congress on the matter. For the first 10 days 
of this operation, it was under U.S. command before shifting control of 
all ongoing operations to NATO on March 30. To this day, the President 
still hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval. When the 
President first committed our military to operations in Libya, he said 
we were talking about days, not months. Today, we are talking about 
months, not days.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama has put us in a trick bag with our NATO 
allies. He knew he was committing our military forces and assets to a 
mission that would be unpopular, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. 
So, in an attempt to avoid Congress and Article I of the U.S. 
Constitution, President Obama transferred operations over to NATO. 
Although we may not be in control of the mission, there is no doubt 
that NATO could not move forward without U.S. assets. As my colleague 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will point out, 93 percent of the cruise 
missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50 
percent of the planes are estimated to have cost this Nation over $700 
million to date.
  I will support our troops wherever the President sends them. However, 
I cannot support President Obama's decision to commit our military 
forces to operations without the constitutionally required 
congressional authorization.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I can say this to my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle: While I've been sitting here this morning, I haven't heard 
anything from either side that I disagree with. I am going to support 
Speaker Boehner's resolution, and I am going to probably oppose 
Representative Kucinich's resolution for this reason the Speaker 
convinced me of, and I listened very carefully to him: With regard to 
within 2 weeks pulling everything that we have in Libya out and coming 
home, it would set a dangerous precedent in regard to our NATO allies.
  Make no mistake about it, this President got us into this mess. It 
was his ignoring of the War Powers Resolution. I don't know who was 
advising him in regard to that, whether or not it was the Attorney 
General, but it was an absolute mistake. Now that he has committed us--
the United States of America and our troops--to NATO through this U.N. 
resolution, I feel it would be a mistake to immediately, within 14 
days, pull the rug out from under that operation.
  I am not completely satisfied with the Boehner resolution, but I 
think it does lay down a marker. It makes a statement. The Speaker was 
very clear in speaking to us that this is not the end of this, that 
this is the beginning. We have the ability to amend, if we need to, the 
War Powers Resolution. We need to make it very clear. I don't know who 
the President notified in regard to this operation. What did he do--
send a tweet to the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services 
Committees and the respective Select Committees on Intelligence? That's 
not good enough for me, a Member, one of 435 in this body. It should 
never happen again, and that's what this is all about today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say that this is not a partisan issue. 
I hear a lot of partisan rhetoric, but it is not a partisan issue. This 
is an issue about where we deploy troops, who has the authority to do 
it and whether or not what the President has done is constitutional.
  I will probably support both resolutions, but one of the concerns I 
have about the Speaker's resolution is that

[[Page H3997]]

it says the President shall not deploy, establish or maintain the 
presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the 
ground in Libya.
  Most of our wars that we fight now are fought from the air or from 
battleships. We've had about 250 missiles fired in Libya, and about 226 
of them are American. We've spent almost three-quarters of $1 billion 
already, and it probably will go over $1 billion. ``Boots on the 
ground'' says that we're not going to put troops into Libya, but we've 
got ships offshore; we've got planes in the air; we've got airmen who 
are at risk every single day; and we're committing military forces in 
Libya even though we don't have boots on the ground.

                              {time}  1010

  This goes further than boots on the ground. The President does not 
have the constitutional authority to do what he did.
  Now, I think that the Boehner resolution is a good step in the right 
direction, except for one thing: it limits it to no boots on the 
ground. We shouldn't have any troops over there.
  This was not approved by Congress, by the people. It was approved by 
the Arab League. It was approved by the United Nations. It was approved 
by the French and English, but not the American people. And it's 
costing billions of dollars, or will cost billions of dollars. This is 
something that should not have happened, and it should never happen 
again.
  Now, if we limit this to boots on the ground, what if the President 
decides in a week, while we're out on recess, to go into Syria. And 
they say, well, it says no boots on the ground. He could still attack 
Syria, Assad there in Syria, with airplanes and missiles.
  We must stop this President from making unilateral decisions that the 
American people do not support and the Congress of the United States 
does not support.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and I want to commend many 
of my colleagues who have come to the floor today who have spoken very 
thoughtfully about this issue.
  But on this issue, quite frankly, we should have come together in a 
bipartisan way and crafted a bipartisan resolution and come to this 
floor as one and spoken as one. That did not happen because politics 
got in the way.
  Anytime over the last several weeks, the Armed Services Committee or 
the Foreign Affairs Committee could have reported out a resolution on 
Libya. They didn't. Mr. Kucinich came to the House with his resolution. 
It went through a process that would have compelled a vote. And all of 
a sudden, the Republican leadership got nervous, and they came up with 
the Boehner resolution in an attempt to undercut the Kucinich 
resolution.
  If you question whether or not politics had anything to do with it, I 
would advise you to read the Politico piece that ran: ``Boehner told 
the House Republican Conference during a closed-door meeting on 
Thursday that he doesn't `want to turn the floor over to Dennis 
Kucinich,' the liberal Ohio Democrat who has been a driving force 
against the administration's military action in Libya.''
  Okay, I get it. But you know what? We could have come together, and 
the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee could have 
come together, and we could have crafted a bipartisan resolution and 
done something truly meaningful here. Because, quite frankly, it 
doesn't matter what political party a President may be. It needs to be 
made clear that Congress plays a role in war-making. And, 
unfortunately, in this case I think there's a bipartisan consensus that 
Congress was just ignored. And that cannot stand.
  My problem, again, with the Boehner resolution is that it doesn't do 
anything. If anybody thinks that passing this resolution is going to 
compel the White House to do anything differently or provide us with 
anything that they haven't already provided us with, they're gravely 
mistaken. It doesn't force the President's administration to do 
anything. It's a strong statement. I think it's written in a very 
partisan way, unfortunately; but my friends on the other side of the 
aisle can do what they want.
  But it reminds, I think, all of us who care deeply about these issues 
that there has to be a better way to do this. And on issues like this, 
we should come together in a bipartisan way and try to craft 
resolutions or joint resolutions that mean something and that both 
sides can feel comfortable supporting.
  I also, again, want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for reminding us again of the importance of the War Powers Resolution. 
It is not just some mere resolution. It is law. It is law. And the 
reason why we are here today is because we believe that the War Powers 
Resolution needs to be upheld and that Congress needs to assert its 
proper role on this issue.
  So having said all of that, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the rule because I think this process is not appropriate. I would 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehner resolution. And I will 
vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote their 
conscience on that.
  But if you really want to send a message, let's not send a press 
release. Let's do something that resonates, that, once again, asserts 
Congress's proper role in this debate.
  We're involved in too many wars. We're going broke. We're losing too 
many brave men and women in these conflicts. And in the case of Libya, 
I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wonder what 
the point is and what our mission is. It's not clear. That's one of the 
reasons why Congress should be involved. That's one of the reasons why 
there should be debate. We need to take this out of the realm of 
partisanship and kind of return it back to where it belongs. This 
should be a bipartisan issue here, and I regret that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle chose not to do that.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the Boehner 
resolution. I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my 
colleagues to vote their conscience on that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this rule lets the House 
work its will, without any question. You have a choice. Take the 
opportunity. Vote your conscience.
  This is a place where we are confident and not nervous, but we want 
to close in a bipartisan way because there's no doubt that we want 
Americans to come together. And I can think of no more appropriate way 
to close than to quote then-Senator Barack Obama once again:
  ``The President does not have the power under the Constitution to 
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not 
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, some have argued that under the War Powers 
Resolution, a concurrent resolution has the force of law. That just is 
not correct.
  Under the Constitution, a law requires the signature of the 
President. That is true for a declaration of war, for an appropriation, 
establishment of weights and measures, or any other exercise of 
legislative power under Article I of the Constitution. Without the 
Signature of the President, or an override of his veto, it is not a law 
and just does not bind the Executive.
  The Supreme Court highlighted this particular point in its landmark 
case INS v. Chadha which overturned the concept of the legislative 
veto. The War Powers Resolution predates the Chadha decision, and most 
constitutional scholars believe that decision creates a constitutional 
infirmity for resolutions passed pursuant to its terms as they would 
constitute a legislative veto.
  So while both the Speaker's resolution and Mr. Kucinich's resolution 
express the policy of the legislative branch, neither has the force of 
law.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H3998]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 257, 
nays 156, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 410]

                               YEAS--257

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--156

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bass (NH)
     Bishop (GA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Guthrie
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Kaptur
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McCotter
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Neal
     Price (GA)
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Shuler
     Visclosky
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1043

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. NADLER, RANGEL, DOGGETT, 
and BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ALTMIRE and FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 410, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________