[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 79 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3998-H4010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I 
call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 292

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. STATEMENTS OF POLICY.

       The House of Representatives makes the following statements 
     of policy:
       (1) The United States Armed Forces shall be used 
     exclusively to defend and advance the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (2) The President has failed to provide Congress with a 
     compelling rationale based upon United States national 
     security interests for current United States military 
     activities regarding Libya.
       (3) 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 unless the purpose of the 
     presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from 
     imminent danger.

     SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH INFORMATION RELATING 
                   TO OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN AND OPERATION UNIFIED 
                   PROTECTOR.

       The House of Representatives directs the Secretary of 
     State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General, 
     respectively, to transmit to the House of Representatives, 
     not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this 
     resolution, copies of any official document, record, memo, 
     correspondence, or other communication in the possession of 
     each officer that was created on or after February 15, 2011, 
     and refers or relates to--
       (1) consultation or communication with Congress regarding 
     the employment or deployment of the United States Armed 
     Forces for Operation Odyssey Dawn or NATO Operation Unified 
     Protector; or
       (2) the War Powers Resolution and Operation Odyssey Dawn or 
     Operation Unified Protector.

     SEC. 3. REPORT TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Contents.--Not later than 14 days after the date of the 
     adoption of this resolution, the President shall transmit to 
     the House of Representatives a report describing in detail 
     United States security interests and objectives, and the 
     activities of United States Armed Forces, in Libya since 
     March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:
       (1) The President's justification for not seeking 
     authorization by Congress for the use of military force in 
     Libya.
       (2) United States political and military objectives 
     regarding Libya, including the relationship between the 
     intended objectives and the operational means being employed 
     to achieve them.
       (3) Changes in United States political and military 
     objectives following the assumption of command by the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
       (4) Differences between United States political and 
     military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO 
     member states engaged in military activities.
       (5) The specific commitments by the United States to 
     ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.

[[Page H3999]]

       (6) The anticipated scope and duration of continued United 
     States military involvement in support of NATO activities 
     regarding Libya.
       (7) The costs of United States military, political, and 
     humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
       (8) The total projected costs of United States military, 
     political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya.
       (9) The impact on United States activities in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan.
       (10) The role of the United States in the establishment of 
     a political structure to succeed the current Libyan regime.
       (11) An assessment of the current military capacity of 
     opposition forces in Libya.
       (12) An assessment of the ability of opposition forces in 
     Libya to establish effective military and political control 
     of Libya and a practicable timetable for accomplishing these 
     objectives.
       (13) An assessment of the consequences of a cessation of 
     United States military activities on the viability of 
     continued NATO operations regarding Libya and on the 
     continued viability of groups opposing the Libyan regime.
       (14) The composition and political agenda of the Interim 
     Transitional National Council (ITNC) and its representation 
     of the views of the Libyan people as a whole.
       (15) The criteria to be used to determine United States 
     recognition of the ITNC as the representative of the Libyan 
     people, including the role of current and former members of 
     the existing regime.
       (16) Financial resources currently available to opposition 
     groups and United States plans to facilitate their access to 
     seized assets of the Libyan regime and proceeds from the sale 
     of Libyan petroleum.
       (17) The relationship between the ITNC and the Muslim 
     Brotherhood, the members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting 
     Group, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and any other group that has 
     promoted an agenda that would negatively impact United States 
     interests.
       (18) Weapons acquired for use, and operations initiated, in 
     Libya by the Muslim Brotherhood, the members of the Libyan 
     Islamic Fighting Group, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and any other 
     group that has promoted an agenda that would negatively 
     impact United States interests.
       (19) The status of the 20,000 MANPADS cited by the 
     Commander of the U.S. Africa Command, as well as Libya's 
     SCUD-Bs and chemical munitions, including mustard gas.
       (20) Material, communication, coordination, financing and 
     other forms of support between and among al-Qaeda operatives, 
     its affiliates, and supporters in Yemen, the Horn of Africa, 
     and North Africa.
       (21) Contributions by Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, 
     Qatar, and other regional states in support of NATO 
     activities in Libya.
       (b) Transmittal.--The report required by this section shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, with a classified annex, 
     as deemed necessary.

     SEC. 4. 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.
       (b) Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold 
     funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed 
     Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding 
     Libya.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman) each will control 20 minutes. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of House Resolution 292, sponsored by our 
distinguished Speaker. As the resolution states at the outset, the 
Armed Forces of the United States may only be used to defend and 
advance the national security interests of the United States, not to 
enforce, to quote the President, ``the writ of the international 
community,'' nor because of the United Nations, nor because of the Arab 
League. Yet these are what the President has repeatedly pointed to in 
justifying sending U.S. forces into action in Libya.
  But what he has not done is explain to the American people and to 
Congress how the situation in Libya, if allowed to spiral out of 
control, poses a threat to U.S. national security interests.
  It is an increasingly important region, Mr. Speaker, with 
implications stretching into other areas that are vital to our Nation. 
Little, if any, details have been provided in response to repeated 
questions regarding U.S. goals, the costs of the operation, the scope 
of the operation, and other issues of direct relevance to our national 
security. It is an open question as to whether the administration 
simply won't tell us or whether they just don't know the answers.
  Members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. I 
share that frustration. Many question the importance of Libya to U.S. 
interests, and especially the need for military engagement. Many more 
are outright angry about the disregard with which the President and his 
administration have treated Congress on the Libya military engagement.
  But it is not surprising that there is a desire to simply say 
``enough'' and to force the President to withdraw precipitously, 
regardless of the consequences. But I believe that we would only make a 
difficult situation worse by taking such drastic action. The negative 
impact would be widespread, Mr. Speaker. The news that the U.S. House 
of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send 
a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Qadhafi is currently hiding. 
It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen not only in Libya, 
but throughout the Middle East and North Africa as open season to 
threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies.
  Pulling out of the NATO operation would also undermine our NATO 
partners, who, after years of prodding by us, have finally begun to 
take more responsibility for ensuring security and stability in the 
region. How could we then argue that they must maintain their 
commitment to our allied efforts in Afghanistan when we have just 
pulled the rug out from under them in Libya?
  We must not let our frustration with the President's contempt for 
Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would 
harm our standing, our credibility, and our interests in the region. 
But clearly, we must speak out.
  This resolution offered by Speaker Boehner would send an unambiguous 
warning to the President that he must either change course in his 
dealings with Congress and the American people or have the decisions 
regarding U.S. involvement in Libya taken out of his hands.

                              {time}  1050

  It states a fundamental truth that I assume that most in this Chamber 
agree with that U.S. forces must only be used to defend and advance the 
national security interests of the United States. It underscores that 
the President has not made a compelling case for U.S. military 
involvement based on U.S. interests, and it prohibits the employment of 
U.S. ground forces in Libya so that mission creep would not gradually 
lead us into an ever-expanding conflict.
  It also requires the President to provide to Congress the information 
that we should have had at the outset, including, Mr. Speaker:
  What are the political and military objectives of the United States 
and Libya?
  How do we intend to achieve them? What specific commitment have we 
made to our NATO operations, and how might these impact our commitments 
in Afghanistan?
  What is the anticipated scope, the duration, and the anticipated cost 
of continued U.S. military involvement in Libya?
  What is the relationship between opposition forces that are grouped 
under the Interim Transitional National Council and the Muslim 
Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, 
and other extremist groups?
  How well armed are these and other extremist groups, and how 
extensive are their activities in Libya?
  Who controls thousands of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and 
stocks of chemical weapons that Qadhafi has acquired?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution bluntly states that the 
President has neither sought nor received authorization by the Congress 
for the continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in 
Libya. If this clear warning doesn't get the attention at

[[Page H4000]]

the White House, then more forceful action may be inevitable. The 
President can choose to act with the support of Congress and with the 
support of the American people, but he will not be allowed to proceed 
without it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this strong and necessary 
resolution.
  With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  In March, when the President committed our troops to NATO's mission 
in Libya, I said that he had a responsibility to the American people to 
define the mission, to explain what America's role was in achieving 
that mission and lay out how it was to be accomplished. He has not 
effectively done so. The American people and the Members of this House 
have questions and concerns that have gone unanswered.
  The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief, and I 
have always believed combat decisions should be left to the Commander 
in Chief and to the generals on the ground. But the House also has an 
obligation to heed the concerns of our constituents and to carry out 
our constitutional responsibilities.
  The resolution I have put forward expresses the will of the people in 
a responsible way that reflects our commitments to our troops and to 
our allies.
  Let me lay out exactly what this resolution does.
  First, it establishes that the President has not asked for and that 
the Congress has not granted authorization for the introduction or 
continued involvement of our troops in Libya.
  Second, it reasserts Congress' constitutional role to fund our 
troops.
  Third, it requires the President to provide, within 14 days, 
information on that mission that should have been provided from the 
start.
  And, lastly, it reaffirms the vote that we took last week that says 
that there should be no troops on the ground in Libya.
  I hope the President will recognize his obligations outlined in this 
resolution and provide this information to Congress and, in doing so, 
better communicate to the American people what our mission in Libya is 
and how it will be achieved.
  The resolution offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
conveys the concerns of the American people, but it also mandates a 
precipitous withdrawal from our role in supporting our NATO allies in 
Libya. In my opinion, that would undermine our troops and our allies, 
which could have serious consequences for our broader national 
security.
  In my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far. We may have 
differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn our backs on 
our troops and our NATO partners who have stuck by us over the last 10 
years.
  In 1991 in my first vote as a Member of this body, I voted to 
authorize the use of force in the first Gulf War. It was a 
consequential time, but I think we did the right thing. And today is no 
different. On behalf of the American people and our country, we have an 
obligation to support our troops in harm's way and to support our 
allies.
  This resolution puts the President on notice. He has a chance to get 
this right; and if he doesn't, Congress will exercise its 
constitutional authority and we will make it right.
  I urge a ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a ``no'' on the 
Kucinich resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  If the Members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber 
resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be 
one big constitutionally created potted plant.
  This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the President. It 
states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling 
rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a 
withholding of documents and information from this body.
  Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of 
course. But we need to look not just at the President's failure to seek 
an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its 
authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred 
duty of authorizing the use of force.
  A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no 
invocation of the War Powers Resolution and which was presented to 
Members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a 
dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the 
most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War.
  There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the 
President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were 
wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling 
national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach 
and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 
Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces.
  If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of 
us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave 
consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the 
use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces 
that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill 
had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an 
authorization of the limited use of force.
  But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the 
President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is 
just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to 
embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of 
the intervention.
  The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of 
powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this 
operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not 
play around with reporting requirements.
  The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall 
not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the 
ground in Libya.

                              {time}  1100

  But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited 
to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the 
majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority 
seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not 
the way to legislate.
  Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright 
inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national 
security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are 
clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and, 
ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol.
  We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against 
civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help. 
Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are 
putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a 
dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for 
democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to 
act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the 
activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy 
could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led 
government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to 
Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power?
  Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of 
terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We 
know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use 
terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a 
more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya.
  I object to the characterization that U.S. national security 
interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is 
quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very 
much correspond with U.S. national interests.
  The Republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both 
ways. They want to criticize the President for taking the very action 
that many of them called for 3 months ago. And

[[Page H4001]]

they want to do so without taking any responsibility. In the process, 
they are offering nothing but criticism, obstruction and endless 
second-guessing.
  President Bush once accused the Democratic Party of becoming ``the 
party of cut and run.'' Well, it seems the running shoe is now on the 
other foot. It is a Democratic President that is taking on a brutal 
tyrant, and it is the Republican Party that refuses to back him.
  I urge my colleagues to take seriously U.S. military involvement in 
Libya and vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 292 and H. 
Con. Res. 51.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman on the Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that the Constitution of the 
United States and the War Powers Act prohibit the President from doing 
what he did. And I'm kind of torn because I stayed up late last night 
thinking about this whole issue. I believe that we shouldn't have gone 
into Libya in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't go into Syria 
or another place without the authorization of the Congress of the 
United States.
  And that's the reason why I cosponsored the Kucinich resolution, 
because we have to send a very strong signal that we're not going to go 
to war without the people of this country supporting it. And the 
President did this unilaterally after talking to the Arab League and 
the U.N. and others without the consent of the people of this country. 
That's the first thing.
  The second thing is the Boehner resolution I'm going to support, but 
it doesn't go far enough. As far as it goes, it's fine. But it talks 
only about boots on the ground. Most of the wars in which we've been 
involved are fought in the air with drones, missiles and airplanes. And 
about two-thirds of the missiles and over half of the sorties flown by 
the airplanes that are involved in this war, over two-thirds of those 
are used by the United States. This is an American conflict. And so 
when we talk about boots on the ground, that's not sufficient.

  Now, I'm going to support it as far as it goes because the Speaker is 
trying to move this in the right direction, but we shouldn't just limit 
this to boots on the ground. It should involve no military operation 
whatsoever without the consent of the Congress and the people of this 
country. And when the Speaker says boots on the ground only, unless we 
are going in to save one of our troops that are downed in an air fight 
or shot down when they go in on a bombing run, then that, in effect, is 
putting boots on the ground anyhow to get those people out of there.
  So, I will support the Boehner resolution, but I prefer the Kucinich 
resolution because it sends a very strong signal and tells the 
President, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot take us to war without 
the consent of the people of this country.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing 
and what we're not doing. ``No boots on the ground'' did not come 
because of this resolution we are considering now. This was the 
decision of the President, the Commander in Chief, at the time. But the 
figures given by my friend from Indiana don't reflect the reality of 
our participation.
  What are we doing now? While we're not in the lead, the United States 
is contributing significantly to the operation: fighter aircraft for 
the suppression of enemy air defense, ISR aircraft, electronic warfare 
aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and 
predatory armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. Twenty-four 
percent, not two-thirds of the total aircraft; 27 percent of the total 
sorties flown; over 75 percent of all refueling sorties; 70 percent of 
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.
  Now there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement 
implicates the War Powers Resolution. This is within the meaning of 
that bill. And, once again, only Kucinich has before us a proposal that 
seeks to deal with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
  I just think we should get the record straight about what our 
involvement is. It's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it 
is significant. And in my opinion, it's within the terms of the War 
Powers Resolution.
  I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for yielding. 
And let me just say, first of all, I rise in opposition to the Boehner 
resolution.
  This debate is long overdue. On March 30, I, along with 
Representatives Woolsey, Honda, Grijalva and Waters, sent a letter to 
Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor requesting that they hold a 
debate and floor vote on the President's authority to continue the use 
of military force in Libya.
  I would like to insert the letter into the Record.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eric Cantor,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor: We, the 
     undersigned Members of Congress, write to request the U.S. 
     House of Representatives immediately take steps to hold a 
     debate and floor vote on the President's authority to 
     continue the use of military force in Libya.
       Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the 
     responsibility to declare war rests with Congress alone. The 
     War Powers Act of 1973 further clarified the important 
     separation of powers and checks and balances in these 
     matters. Consideration of the Presidents continued military 
     engagement in Libya is our responsibility as elected 
     representatives in the U.S. Congress, and essential to 
     reasserting the undisputed role and responsibility of the 
     Legislative Branch in overseeing and providing for our 
     nation's commitments while at war.
       The United States has now been engaged militarily in Libya 
     since March 19, 2011. While we firmly believe that a robust 
     debate and up-or-down floor vote should have occulted in 
     advance of U.S. military action in Libya, it is without 
     question that such measures are still urgently required. 
     Beyond defending Congressional authority in these matters, 
     these deliberations are essential to ensuring that we as a 
     country fully debate and understand the strategic goals, 
     costs, and long-term consequences of military action in 
     Libya.
       Many questions remain unanswered regarding our short and 
     long-term responsibilities in Libya as well as our strategy 
     for ending U.S. military operations. The Department of 
     Defense has indicated that the costs of U.S. military 
     operations in Libya totaled $600 million in the first week 
     alone, and are estimated to mount by as much as $100 million 
     per week, in the future. At a time of severe economic 
     distress here at home, as well as in recognition of the 
     continued strain on our military service members already 
     engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these concerns 
     are especially worthy of congressional deliberation.
       It is our position that the President has a constitutional 
     obligation to seek specific, statutory authorization for 
     offensive military action, as he should have done with regard 
     to U.S. military engagement in Libya. We look forward to 
     working with you to address this matter on the House floor as 
     soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Lee,
       Member of Congress.
     Lynn C. Woolsey,
       Member of Congress.
     Michael M. Honda,
       Member of Congress.
     Raul M. Grijalva,
       Member of Congress.
     Maxine Waters,
       Member of Congress.

  Madam Speaker, I would like to read parts of this letter, dated March 
30, if I may:
  Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor: We, the undersigned 
Members of Congress, write to request the United States House of 
Representatives immediately take steps to hold a debate and floor vote 
on the President's authority to continue the use of military force in 
Libya.

[[Page H4002]]

  We cite the Constitution, article I, section 8.
  We go on to say that the United States has now been engaged 
militarily in Libya since March 19, 2011. While we firmly believe that 
a robust debate and up-or-down floor vote should have occurred in 
advance of U.S. military action in Libya, it is without question that 
such measures are still urgently required. Beyond defending 
congressional authority in these matters, these deliberations are 
essential to ensuring that we as a country fully debate and understand 
the strategic goals, costs, and long-term consequences of military 
action in Libya.
  That is one paragraph of this sentence.
  Now, Madam Speaker, over 60 days since our letter, the Speaker has 
suddenly and hastily scheduled a resolution that, frankly, does nothing 
but serve to politicize what is an extremely serious and what should be 
a nonpartisan issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

                              {time}  1110

  Ms. LEE. As we know, the War Powers Act specifically forbids Armed 
Forces from engaging in military action in foreign lands for more than 
60 days without congressional authorization or the use of military 
force or a declaration of war.
  We have been actively fighting now for 77 days. This is not just 
about our mission in Libya. And let me just say that I think our 
President, frankly, has done a commendable job in handling the very 
complex range of foreign policy issues, but it is about any President, 
any administration. It is not about that; it is about standing up for 
congressional power granted in the Constitution. As our ranking member 
said, the Kucinich amendment is the amendment that addresses this head-
on in a very honest and direct way.
  So we should reject this politically motivated resolution. It is a 
resolution that has just come up. We asked again the Speaker and 
majority leader on March 30 to conduct a debate and an up-or-down vote. 
We conclude in our letter that it is our position that the President 
has a constitutional obligation to seek specific statutory authority 
for offensive military action, as he should have done with regard to 
U.S. military engagement in Libya.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a valued member of our 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me this time. I rise respectfully in support of House 
Resolution 292, which reasserts the congressional war-making authority 
of section 8, article I of the Constitution, and I respectfully 
disagree with my ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 
for whom I have enormous respect.
  I don't think this resolution takes gratuitous potshots at the 
President of the United States. I think it is a thoughtful exposition 
of the issues in front of us and the requirements that we want to put 
on the President, and it buys the President time to comply without the 
disruption that the Kucinich resolution would cause, not only in Libya, 
but the ramifications for NATO relationships and in the Arab democratic 
spring.
  The resolution prohibits the President from deploying ground troops 
in Libya, and declares Congress has the constitutional prerogative to 
withhold funding for any unauthorized use of U.S. Armed Forces. It 
requires the administration to transmit to the House of Representatives 
any records regarding congressional communication and Operation Odyssey 
Dawn in Libya within 14 days of passage.
  Madam Speaker, since before the passage of the War Powers Resolution 
in 1973, the executive branch, regardless of party or leader, has 
argued that there are inherent constitutional powers contained in the 
constitutional reference to the President as Commander in Chief. If one 
argues that section 2, article II of the Constitution grants the 
President inherent powers as Commander in Chief, then logically one 
ought to acknowledge that Congress also has inherent powers as the only 
entity expressly granted the power to declare war in that document.
  According to the House report regarding the War Powers Resolution, 
``consultation . . . means that a decision is pending on a problem and 
that Members of Congress are being asked by the President for their 
advice and opinions and, in appropriate circumstances, their approval 
of action contemplated.'' This report language makes the intention of 
the War Powers Resolution clear: Consultation ought to be active, not 
merely informative. In the War Powers Resolution, the term 
``hostilities'' was used deliberately instead of ``armed conflict'' 
precisely because of the former phrase's broader nature. The 
Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are clear: Congress must 
have a role with regard to the use and deployment of U.S. forces. The 
extent of that role has been the subject of debate as old as the United 
States itself.

  To go even further, a strict constructionist would argue that the War 
Powers Resolution itself limits congressional authority. The act of 
even acknowledging the need for a statutory framework to codify 
Congress' powers in the Constitution in fact dilutes those powers and 
may have the unintended effect of enhancing the Executive's powers 
directly at the expense of Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, House 
Resolution 292, to assert congressional authority and to buy the 
President time with which to comply.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to my friend's arguments. I agree with every 
word he said except that this is a manifestation of the Congress 
exercising its authority. This is an abdication of Congress exercising 
its authority, because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization 
for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be 
authorizing if we think they are appropriate.
  The gentleman from Ohio doesn't think they are appropriate. Some of 
us do think it is appropriate, and this isn't about buying time. We are 
not a supplicant to go to the executive branch and ask for them to 
request of us authorization. We have the institutional power to decide 
what to do, and this resolution fails to take that option.
  I think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution 
is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the 
Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
  With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been here a long time, and I have never come to this floor for 
the purpose of opposing innocuous resolutions. In fact, I've voted for 
every piece of innocuous legislation and post office renaming in the 
last 15 years, as far as I can remember. And this is innocuous 
legislation.
  First, it starts with a sense of Congress about our opinion as to 
what should or shouldn't be done. It has a sentence that purports to 
prevent the President from putting ground forces in Libya, but in fact 
just states that's our policy. It is certainly not designed to prohibit 
the President from doing so; it just says that it's our opinion that he 
shouldn't. And, by the way, in the Defense authorization bill, we have 
real legislation that already prohibits putting ground forces in Libya.
  It then goes on to ask that a number of questions be answered. There 
are some who think, that's important. Those who think that the 
questions propounded in this resolution are actually going to get us 
useful information are insulting the faculty of the law schools of 
America, because both the Pentagon and the State Department have 
lawyers capable of writing long and meaningless answers to every 
question we propound. And as for getting documents, some of the 
documents demanded we already have, and as for the rest, those same 
lawyers will be writing long documents about executive privilege.
  So we have here a document that at most is just questions for the 
Record that the chairwoman of our committee allows me to add at the end 
of so many hearings; hardly earthshaking, certainly innocuous.
  But, okay, so it's innocuous. Or is it?

[[Page H4003]]

  This is innocuous legislation that plays a particular role in 
avoiding the constitutional role of this Congress. It allows us to 
sidestep the War Powers Act. It gives cover to those who don't want to 
authorize, or refuse to authorize. It says we're an advisory body. We 
ask some questions so we can give good advice. We will give the 
President some advice. It is part of the trend of an aggrandizing 
executive and a derelict Congress, a Congress that almost is complicit 
in this slow process by which we are not legislators, we are not 
deciders; we inquire and we advise.
  The Constitution is clear, but the War Powers Act is more clear: the 
President must ask for congressional authorization. Then we actually 
have to act, and that is tough. We have to review the proposals, and I 
believe our ranking member (Mr. Berman) would have one that would say, 
What are we going to authorize? Under what conditions? What demands 
will we make of our allies in Libya to perhaps turn over to us, or at 
least disassociate themselves from, the al Qaeda operatives in their 
midst? Are we going to limit the duration? Are we going to limit the 
scope? Are we going to impose limits on the total cost?
  With this resolution, we can avoid all of those questions. We can 
avoid demanding a withdrawal. We can avoid limiting the authorization, 
and we can allow the President to continue to write the blank check 
that apparently he believes he has, and we can do it all while 
disassociating ourselves with anything unpopular that ever happens over 
the skies of Libya.
  Now is not the time for us to shirk our responsibilities. Our 
responsibility is to act as a policy-making body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the gentleman for 1 more minute.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

                              {time} 1120

  Mr. SHERMAN. Now is the time for us to play the role that the War 
Powers Act provides, because this is not an immediate short-term 
emergency situation. It has gone on for much longer than 60 days. It 
should not go further.
  Now, 208 Members of this Congress voted for my amendment yesterday to 
say that we should not expend funds in violation of the War Powers Act, 
and you were willing to vote for it even though I put it on a bill as 
to which it really didn't pertain. Thank you for those votes, but now 
please come back here and say, It's time to enforce the War Powers Act. 
It's time not to dodge the War Powers Act. It's time for our policy 
over the skies in Libya to be determined by the President and Congress, 
not the President advised by Congress.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Don't use it as a sidestep. Instead, 
go back to your constituents and say, You are for voting either for a 
withdrawal from Libya or for a full authorization or for a limited 
authorization.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank my friend and the chairman for yielding 
me this time because I think it is important to stress the importance 
of the Boehner resolution. Especially on page 4 and page 7 of the 
resolution, it deals specifically with the Constitution and the 
constitutional responsibility of the administration and the Congress to 
work together, especially in matters of national security.
  As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as my 
colleague has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding for 
any military operation that is approved by the Commander in Chief and 
approved by the Congress.
  On the matter of Libya, on April 1, I sent a letter to the President, 
trying to exercise my responsibilities as chairman--a conciliatory 
letter, actually--expressing support for our troops but asking certain 
questions: How long do you think this will last? How much do you think 
it will cost? How much of a future commitment have we made? What will 
be the source of the funding for this operation? Here, more than 2 
months later, this official request from the Appropriations Committee 
still remains unanswered by the administration. That's just not right.
  The Constitution is pretty clear. Article I, section 9 of the 
Constitution, in part, reads, ``No money shall be drawn from the 
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a 
regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all 
public money shall be published from time to time.''
  So far, on the Libya issue, this article I, section 9 has been 
totally ignored. It's just not right. That's a violation, in my 
opinion, and contravenes the Constitution, itself. When I asked for 
that information, the only thing I got on the cost of this Libyan 
operation was in bits and pieces. We have added it, and we have come to 
about $750 million already spent on the Libyan mission. They've not 
confirmed that, but we have put together, with our own addition, bits 
and pieces on that. Again, we have received no reply whatsoever.
  What I'm wondering is: Where is the money to pay for the Libyan 
operation coming from? What account is it coming from? Is it coming out 
of personnel costs--soldiers' pay? Is it coming out of medical care? Is 
it coming out of the training for our troops? What accounts are being 
used? We have a right and an obligation under the Constitution to know 
the answer to that.
  Speaker Boehner's resolution calls very, very sharp attention to that 
issue, so I think it is important that the House passes the Boehner 
resolution to let the President know that we are not going to allow him 
to ignore the Constitution any further when it comes to war powers, 
when it comes to spending for the welfare of our troops, when it comes 
to appropriating money for the defense of our Nation and for the 
defense of our allies.
  Madam Speaker, I do ask that the letter that I sent to the President, 
which has remained unanswered for more than 2 months, be included at 
this point in the Record so that my colleagues can see that it was a 
very, very legitimate and a very conciliatory request, basically an 
offer to support our troops in any legitimate activity. So we are still 
waiting. We are standing by, hoping that we do hear from the President 
very soon, maybe shortly after we pass the Boehner resolution.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Recent events across northern Africa 
     and the Middle East demonstrate the powerful effect that the 
     prospect of self-government and basic human rights can have 
     on an oppressed population. Governments have fallen and 
     nations have changed, all in the name of freedom. Operation 
     Odyssey Dawn (now Unified Protector), based on United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1973, is another chapter in this 
     remarkable story that history is writing before us.
       The Members of the House Defense Subcommittee on 
     Appropriations stand ready to support our brave men and women 
     in uniform as they carry out their mission, but it is 
     essential that we know precisely what that mission is, and 
     what role U.S. troops have in achieving that mission. For 
     example, enforcement of a no-fly-zone is one thing, but the 
     use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 aircraft denote an entirely 
     different battle. And without knowing what goals we hope to 
     achieve, our long-term commitment is unclear. Indeed, as 
     history has taught us, without defined goals or objectives 
     the probability of an open-ended campaign increases. As our 
     nation continues to struggle through the current fiscal 
     crisis, an exit strategy seems all the more prudent. There 
     was, however, little to no consultation with Congress prior 
     to these actions, and almost two weeks after our first 
     engagement, many of these concerns remain unaddressed.
       The Department of Defense has indicated that through March 
     28, they spent approximately $550 million in support of 
     Operation Odyssey Dawn; and they expect to spend at a minimum 
     another $40 million a month as we continue to support the now 
     NATO-led Operation Unified Protector. This assumes a reduced 
     U.S. role, which could change significantly if NATO requires 
     additional support. It was also made clear that there would 
     be no additional funds requested by your Administration, 
     either in the form of a supplemental request or a budget 
     amendment. In fact, you stated that the costs of this mission 
     could be paid for out of previously appropriated funds. As 
     this Committee works to finish fiscal year 2011 and begins 
     work on fiscal year 2012, I feel it is imperative that we 
     know where you believe these funds will come from. Based on 
     the above Department

[[Page H4004]]

     of Defense rate, costs for fiscal year 2011 could reach $800 
     million, and depending on the length of our commitment, 
     another $500 million in fiscal year 2012. I do not need to 
     remind you that the Department of Defense fiscal year 2012 
     request is already $13 billion below where it was estimated 
     it would be just a year ago--the reduction taken in the name 
     of efficiencies.
       As the nation's military continue to serve in harm's way, I 
     feel it is imperative we proceed with complete openness and 
     transparency. I pledge that I will continue to do everything 
     I can to support these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and 
     airmen, as I have done throughout my career, and I ask for 
     your help and support in doing the same.
           Sincerely,
                                                 C. W. Bill Young,
                                   Chairman, Defense Subcommittee.

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  In defense of Mr. Burton's description of U.S. involvement already in 
Libya, I would like to have entered into the Record an article from the 
Guardian U.K., dated May 22, which talks about the United States having 
50 percent of the ships, 50 percent of the planes, 66 percent of the 
personnel, 93 percent of the cruise missiles.
  I just want to say briefly, Madam Speaker, that this article was 
written about 10 days ago. If it's true, it points out that we've 
undertaken a huge mission through the United States in the name of 
NATO--now, without coming to the Congress, and that's what we're 
debating, of course. Yet if, on the other hand, the information that 
the administration has communicated as of late to the Congress suggests 
a lighter footprint, then there should be no difficulty in pulling out 
of Libya in 15 days. If there is, we need to start asking questions 
about how deeply enmeshed we are if our participation is truly no boots 
on the ground.

                [From the guardian.co.uk, May 22, 2011]

                  Libya: Britain's 1bn War

              (By Richard Norton-Taylor and Simon Rogers)

       Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the 
     taxpayer as much as 1bn if it continues into the 
     autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data 
     gathered by the Guardian.
       Two months after western powers began bombing Libyan 
     targets to protect civilians in Operation Unified Protector, 
     the cost to Britain so far of the dozens of bombs dropped, 
     hundreds of sorties flown and more than 1,000 service 
     personnel deployed is estimated at more than 
     100m, according to British defence officials.
       But defence economists have told the Guardian the costings 
     are conservative. Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence 
     Analysis newsletter, estimates that by the end of April 
     Libyan operations had already cost the UK about 
     300m and that the bill was increasing by up to 
     38m a week.
       Defence chiefs in the UK and US are also said to be 
     concerned that some NATO countries are unwilling to commit 
     air power to the campaign. It is not only the cost that is 
     worrying the Ministry of Defence, and, indeed, defence chiefs 
     in the Pentagon. The reluctance of most countries to commit 
     their air forces to action--Norway, which has dropped about 
     300 bombs, is to pull out at the end of June--is causing 
     serious concern among military commanders throughout the 
     alliance about whether NATO countries have the political will 
     and military capability to continue operations that now have 
     the stated aim of removing power from Gaddafi, his sons, and 
     closet advisers.
       For Britain, the Libyan conflict has also presented 
     military commanders and ministers alike with an uncomfortable 
     reminder of the perilous state of the defence budget. As Paul 
     Cornish, head of the international security programme at the 
     thinktank Chatham House, has observed, many of the military 
     capabilities used in and around Libya--HMS Cumberland, the 
     Nimrod R1 eavesdropping plane, the Sentinental surveillance 
     aircraft, and Tornado jets--are among the first casualties to 
     be scrapped or their numbers reduced (in the case of 
     Tornados) as a result of last year's strategic defence and 
     security review.
       ``The obvious question to ask,'' Cornish writes in the 
     latest issue of The World Today, ``is whether Britain could 
     have made a contribution to the intervention in Libya had the 
     crisis developed later in 2011 when most of the 
     decommissionings, disbandments, and retirements would 
     otherwise have taken place.''
       The U.S. led the assault, during the first week flying more 
     than 800 sorties in Libya, of which over 300 were strike 
     sorties. It fired more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles from 
     its ships. Britain has fired fewer than 20 Tomahawks, costing 
     an estimated 1m each, from the submarine HMS 
     Triumph.
       Britain, which has accounted for some 25% of all sorties, 
     was so worried about the gap left by the U.S. when it ceded 
     command to NATO, and stood down its aircraft--including low-
     flying A10 tankbusting ``Warthogs'' and C130 gunships.

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Financial Services Committee 
and a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, with a 
distinguished 26-year military career.
  Mr. STIVERS. I would like to thank the chairwoman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in support of the Speaker's resolution. With 26 years of 
military service, my experience has taught me many lessons, and those 
lessons give me pause and concern with regard to the Kucinich 
resolution. I think we need to be prudent, thoughtful and measured in 
the way we end our involvement in Libya, and I don't believe that the 
Kucinich resolution does that.
  Even though the President did not follow proper procedures and even 
though he should have allowed Congress to debate and decide the issue, 
a 15-day withdrawal would cause other issues. Currently, the U.S. is 
providing important refueling, logistics and other support functions 
for our NATO allies. Unfortunately, if you create a 15-day time line, 
those allies might not have time to plan or build capacity to resource 
their plan and effectively continue their operations.
  I don't agree with how the President has handled our current military 
mission in Libya, and I don't think he has currently explained the 
national security interest of our mission. However, I think the troops 
that have been called to action have performed admirably, and I thank 
them for their service. But now we are involved, and the time frame for 
withdrawal in the Kucinich resolution would hurt our NATO allies, the 
same allies who have stood by us in Afghanistan for 10 years. They 
deserve our cooperation in any transition. I support the Speaker's 
alternative resolution on Libya. I think it asks tough questions of the 
President, and requires him to explain our national security interests 
and to justify his strategy to Congress and to the American people. If 
the President doesn't answer those questions within 14 days, I believe 
Congress should continue to assert its constitutional authority.
  In response to the gentleman from California, I would like to say 
that I think it is important we get information to make timely 
decisions. Therefore, I support the Speaker's alternative resolution as 
a way forward in Libya.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in response to 
the previous speaker.
  What I'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. If the 
President doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are 
we doing? The resolution is silent. This is a resolution filled with 
things we want and are asking for and demanding and are harumphing 
about with no consequences.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 
former member of the committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is a ``here we go again'' moment on the House 
floor.
  Two weeks ago the Kucinich amendment passed the House overwhelmingly 
with a total bipartisan vote because it was the right thing to do. But, 
no, the other side of the aisle can't stand to let us have an 
initiative, the right thing to do, that they really could agree to.
  So here we are today debating the Boehner resolution to take the air 
out of the question of whether the United States Congress or the White 
House has responsibility for the War Powers Resolution and begging them 
to know that it is our responsibility.
  Members should not be fooled into voting for the Boehner resolution 
because it delays action. We should vote for the Kucinich resolution 
that insists that the Congress reclaim its authority, take its 
responsibility, and do the right thing regarding Libya.
  Vote ``no'' on the Boehner resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution offered by the Speaker is the 
responsible approach. It expresses congressional intent. It affords one 
last opportunity to the President and his administration

[[Page H4005]]

to work with us in Congress to advance U.S. interests in the region. I 
hope that the President is listening and that this resolution will 
serve as a wake-up call leading to immediate consultation. And, 
frankly, we have not had that as we would like.
  If, in 14 days, as it says in this resolution, the President has not 
complied with the requests included in the resolution, then this House 
will consider the next steps.
  I therefore urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehner resolution, a 
responsible approach to the President to work with us and a plea to 
give us the information that we requested.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I do not believe 
that the President has provided adequate justification for our military 
operations in Libya nor why continued intervention in a humanitarian 
stalemate is in our national interest.
  More than 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President outlining my 
concerns regarding our strategy, our role within NATO operations, and 
the escalating costs of these operations at a time when the 
administration is asking the Department of Defense to make an 
additional $400 billion in cuts. To date, I have not received a reply.
  Yet I believe that forcing the hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces from 
NATO operations in Libya would embolden Qadhafi and gravely damage our 
credibility with our allies. Consequently, such a move could have 
dramatic, negative, second-order effects on operations that are 
critical to our national security, such as operations in Afghanistan.
  I believe Speaker Boehner's resolution addresses much of the 
frustration shared by Members of this body. The resolution reinforces 
provisions in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act 
prohibiting the escalation of U.S. participation without express 
authorization from Congress. This resolution requires the President to 
clearly outline the strategic interests that justify intervention in 
Libya, to explain how the operational means being employed will secure 
them. It requires a prompt and transparent accounting of costs as well 
as information regarding the capacity and intentions of the rebel 
forces. This information is essential to allow Congress to execute its 
constitutionally mandated oversight role of military operations.
  Again, I fully agree that the administration has been disturbingly 
dismissive of Congress's role in the authorization of military force. 
But I also feel that passing this resolution is the most effective way 
of holding the President accountable without sacrificing other vital 
national interests that would be damaged by a precipitous withdrawal 
from NATO operations.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do thank both Speaker Boehner and Representative Kucinich for 
bringing these resolutions and bringing this issue to the floor because 
I completely agree that this is an issue that Congress should debate, 
discuss, and should ultimately express its opinion on. We have not done 
that. We are now past 90 days that this mission has been going on in 
Libya, and I feel we should have brought this up much sooner.
  Now, I would prefer a much cleaner resolution that simply came out 
and made a resolution of approval of the President's mission and of the 
mission that we and NATO have undertaken in Libya and gave Members the 
chance to vote it up or down. In that sense, Mr. Kucinich's resolution 
is much more straightforward. It's a resolution of disapproval, but, 
again, it gives us the opportunity to at least debate the issue and 
express the will of Congress.
  I do, however, oppose Mr. Boehner's resolution. I also oppose Mr. 
Kucinich's resolution because I don't think we should pull away from 
this mission, should pull out of what NATO is doing and the very 
important work that is going on in Libya.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. Boehner's resolution doesn't do any of that, but it does rather 
boldly state that the President has not made a case for the mission in 
Libya, and I very strongly disagree with that assessment.
  Now I will agree--and Mr. McKeon and I share the frustration--that 
prior to the launching of this mission, there was an inadequate amount 
of communication between the President and this Congress, indeed, 
between the President and the American people, explaining the reasons 
for getting into that mission; but since that time the President has 
made it very clear why we went into Libya.
  We had a unique situation. I do not believe the American military 
should intervene in every conflict in every country. In fact, I don't 
believe it should intervene in almost any of them. It takes a unique 
set of circumstances to call for that intervention; and in Libya we 
had, I believe, that unique set of circumstances.
  Number one, we had broad international support. The U.N., NATO, the 
Arab League all looked at that situation and said intervention was 
necessary.
  Number two, we had a clear humanitarian crisis. There was no doubt at 
the time that we intervened that if we had not, Muammar Qadhafi would 
have slaughtered his own people and reasserted control over Libya. He 
made it clear that is what he was going to do. It was clear that the 
people rising up for the legitimate opportunity to be heard in their 
government did not have the power and the force to stop him. We did.
  If we had not acted, there is no question that Muammar Qadhafi would 
be back in charge of Libya, and we would bear at least some piece of 
the responsibility--at least that is the way the rest of the world 
would have looked at it. We in the United States had the power and the 
force to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and chose not to act.
  And that's one of the most critical elements in deciding whether or 
not to intervene: Can we intervene in a successful way? Yes, there are 
many countries throughout the world that face crises right now, in 
Syria, in Sudan, in the Congo, a whole bunch of places. But most of 
those places--in fact in all of those--there is no clear military 
mission that we could accomplish and achieve. In Libya, there was. If 
we intervened, we could stop Qadhafi from regaining control of his 
entire country.
  At the time we understood there was no guarantee that that would mean 
that he would be driven from power immediately, but we could at least 
stop him from doing that. It was a humanitarian crisis that our actions 
could prevent. I think it made sense, and I think the President has 
clearly articulated that.
  So for the Congress to pass a resolution saying they have no earthly 
idea what the President is doing in Libya simply means that they 
haven't been paying attention for the last couple of months. It has 
been made clear.
  Now, I think it is appropriate that we ask the President to regularly 
keep in touch with us, let us know where the mission is going. I 
supported the resolution that said no ground troops in Libya. I think 
that is a step too far. I don't think that is something that would 
clearly be able to be accomplished militarily, so I do think that's 
appropriate.
  But the part of this resolution that I must oppose is the part that 
says the President has made no national security case for why we should 
be involved in Libya. I believe that he has, and I don't think we 
should support a resolution saying otherwise. To have simply allowed 
Libya to fall apart and not helped a people that we could clearly help, 
that were legitimately calling for greater freedom and greater 
opportunity, I think, would have been a mistake.
  So I will oppose the Boehner resolution, and I will also oppose the 
Kucinich resolution because I don't believe we should pull out of the 
mission. But again, I thank all of those involved for bringing this 
debate to the House floor so that we can have that debate so that we in 
Congress can assert our authority and express our opinion on this very, 
very important issue.

[[Page H4006]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Error and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Boehner resolution.
  I am not here today to argue whether or not we should be in Libya. 
That is an argument for another day. What I'm here today concerned with 
is how we got into Libya, because I think that was a very important 
precedent.
  We went into Libya on March 19, Operation Odyssey Dawn. Just 12 days 
later, a House committee met and Secretary Gates was there and I made 
this statement: ``I'm among many people who feel that President Obama 
has involved the United States in an unconstitutional and illegal war 
in Libya.''
  That same day I dropped H.R. 1323, which asked the President to find 
offsets in non-defense discretionary spending to pay for the war in 
Libya that was not authorized by the Congress because we have no money, 
and I shouldn't ask my kids and my grandkids to pay for that war. This 
is not the king's army. The power to move our Army into Libya is not 
inherent in Commander in Chief. If it were, they would not have put in 
article I, section 8, the responsibility of the Congress to declare 
war.
  This is an unconstitutional and illegal war. I think it sets a very 
dangerous precedent, and I hope that we make that very clear in our 
deliberations today.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boehner 
resolution, but not because I feel that the President has stated a 
correct policy for us being in Libya. I think he hasn't. All that 
you'll hear on the floor today would lead to a policy that, if we adopt 
it, would put us in war with five or six other countries tomorrow. But, 
secondly, I don't support the fact of how we got in there because I 
think clearly he didn't go through the proper procedures that we need 
and didn't comply with the War Powers Act.
  But, Madam Speaker, I also realize that regardless of that 
disagreement he is the President of the United States; and as such he 
has information about our national defense that many Members of 
Congress don't have that we need to have shared with us.
  And, second, Madam Speaker, as the President of the United States, 
when it comes to foreign policy issues of this magnitude, we need to 
give him some latitude to present that case and make it to this 
Congress.
  Madam Speaker, the Boehner resolution does that in a reasonable way 
by giving him 14 days to present that information. But I believe, as 
many people do, at the end of that 14 days, if he hasn't done so, if he 
hasn't made that case, if he hasn't given us that information, we need 
to be prepared to launch the subpoenas to get the information, or we 
need to be back on this floor taking action to cut off the funding of 
what's taking place there.
  Madam Speaker, I hope we will support the Boehner resolution. I think 
it's a reasonable approach and the correct approach.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon.
  The President has not made the case for our military conflict in 
Libya. He has told us who we are against, Qadhafi, but he has not told 
us who we are for.
  Secretary Gates has told us that we know very little about the 
opposition; we know very little about the rebels. We do not know their 
geopolitical view to their neighbors; we do not know their geopolitical 
view to us. We do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. Are 
we going to have atrocities? We do not know their ideology, we do not 
know their preferred form of government, and we also do not know their 
commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an issue 
that is important in Libya.
  The President has used United Nations approval of civil protection to 
wage all-out war on Qadhafi without congressional approval or American 
support. U.S. Admiral Locklear, in charge of the NATO operations 
against Libya, recently stated that ground troops would be needed to 
provide stability in Libya once the Qadhafi regime falls. Yesterday, 
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he believes that the 
President has the support of the majority of the Members of Congress. I 
do not think so.
  I offered a resolution, House Resolution 58, that would voice this 
body's disapproval of the President's actions in Libya. Seventy-five 
Members have co-sponsored this resolution. I believe it's important for 
this body's voice to be heard.
  The President has not provided us any information as to why we are 
doing this, what a post-Qadhafi regime will look like in Libya, and 
what will be our involvement. He is committing us to an extended 
military action; and for Congress to be relevant, our voices need to be 
heard.
  I support the Speaker's resolution, and I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 58.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion.
  The War Crimes Tribunal is about to prosecute Ratko Mladic--16 years 
later, but they've finally gotten him. Why? Because he masterminded the 
massacre of over 8,000 innocent civilians in Srebrenica. Serbia is now 
a democratic ally, thanks to President Clinton's taking action against 
congressional resistance.
  We took the lead in the Balkans. It was a NATO effort, but I think we 
all know that NATO could not have put an end to those massacres, that 
genocide, had we not taken the lead. We had to act responsibly, and we 
had to act in a timely and forceful manner.
  Now, more recently there have been more than a dozen times since 2000 
when the President has had to use American troops to intervene for 
humanitarian reasons against terrorist threats, against whatever 
endangered American civilians and troops.
  To tie the President's hands in such situations, whether it be a 
Republican or Democratic President, is wrong. We should not be doing 
this. Of course we should be advising the President, working with the 
President, whoever that President might be. And through our committee 
leadership, we have any number of opportunities to do that. But to pass 
legislation that is designed to tie the President's hands at a time of 
military crisis is inconsistent with the legacy of this body, which is 
to do what is necessary to protect America's interests at home and 
abroad.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman from Virginia 1 
additional minute.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. MORAN. With regard to Libya, we don't know what the outcome is 
going to be in Libya. We do know that Muammar Qadhafi is a bad guy. 
He's not an ally. He's not even reliable in terms of working with us in 
any economic or foreign policy measure. This is an opportunity to 
establish a government that we can work with. We can't control that 
government, we're not sure of the outcome, but we know the people 
putting their government together today want to work with the United 
States. But they need American support, obviously under the umbrella of 
NATO--that's NATO's purpose--but none of us should be so naive as to 
think that NATO can operate independent of United States leadership. 
That's just not the case. We have made the investment in our military 
capability, we have established ourselves as the world's superpower, 
and with that role comes a concomitant responsibility to use it when 
and wherever necessary for the advancement of world peace and security.
  Let's defeat this resolution.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

[[Page H4007]]

  Mr. RIGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman McKeon for yielding, and 
I rise in strong support of House Resolution 292.
  I object to the U.S. military intervention in Libya, and my friend 
and colleague from Virginia actually has far more confidence in the 
intent and the purpose of the rebels than I do. I've heard in testimony 
in the Armed Services Committee from multiple top leaders in our 
country that we simply don't know enough about the rebels, and in my 
view not one single provision of the War Powers Resolution has been met 
that would legitimize the President's intervention in Libya.
  Since President Obama announced the military strikes, Secretary of 
State Gates admitted that Operation Odyssey Dawn ``was not a vital 
national interest to the United States.''
  This legislation, the Boehner resolution, reflects and meets the deep 
obligation we have to support our troops and to uphold the 
Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, the citizens of Mississippi's Fourth 
Congressional District overwhelmingly do not support the President's 
handling of Libya, and I agree with my constituents.
  Our country, our military, and their families are fatigued by 10 
years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House has yet to 
clearly explain to the American people why we should commit more of our 
precious blood and treasure to a third war.
  Where is the leadership Americans expect and deserve when it comes to 
committing our troops to foreign wars?
  With reservation, I will support House Resolution 292--only because 
the United States must honor our commitment to our friends and allies 
engaged in the Libyan conflict. This resolution gives the President 14 
days to explain to Congress the scope of our objectives in Libya. If he 
fails, we should immediately withdraw our support from the conflict, 
and as much as we care for our friends and allies, we cannot cast aside 
the laws of our land.
  Mr. President, the American people and this Congress have questions 
and deserve answers. We cannot afford a failure in leadership when 
Americans' lives are on the line.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their 
comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. The President has said from the outset that 
our role in this mission will be limited; limited but critical. We are 
not committing troops, we are not committing the full force of the U.S. 
military, but what we are contributing, as Mr. Moran said, is 
absolutely critical to the success of the mission. We are supporting 
our NATO allies in making sure that this mission is carried out in a 
very limited and very critical way.
  I just want to emphasize again that Muammar Qadhafi is not someone 
who is in the best national security interests of the United States of 
America. He has a long, long history of weapons of mass destruction, of 
supporting terrorist groups, of committing terrorist acts against 
United States citizens, and of in general being an unstable and 
destabilizing figure. When the people of Libya decided to rise up to 
throw him out, it was a very appropriate thing for them to do.
  Now we all wish that Mr. Qadhafi would have gone quietly and simply--
that certainly would have been the easier way to go--but he didn't. And 
to protect those people who have legitimate aspirations for a better 
government, we needed to intervene militarily to assist.
  Now I think in this instance the best thing about this is we were not 
alone. The Arab League, the United Nations, NATO, took the lead. There 
is a great deal of instability throughout the Middle East and that is 
unquestionably in the national security interests of the United States 
of America to do whatever we can to try and reduce that instability and 
make sure that we have friends, allies and also governments that 
legitimately represent the aspirations of their people. That is one of 
the greatest problems we've had. We have supported governments in the 
past in the Middle East who didn't have the support of their people. We 
need not just the support of governments, we need the support of the 
people in that region. This is a critical opportunity to gain that 
support. I believe that's clearly in the national security interest of 
the American people.
  So, I do not agree with the gentleman from Ohio's resolution in 
saying that the President has not articulated a case. He has. We in the 
House should vote whether we approve it or not, but I don't think it is 
correct to say that the case has not been made. Let's have a vote in 
this body, as we will, on the Kucinich resolution, of whether or not to 
support what is going on there or not, but we should not simply be 
asking the President for something he has already provided.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. Young.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I rise in support, as so many of my colleagues 
have, of House Resolution 292, because this Congress is a coequal 
branch of government, and we must never be a quiet coequal branch, 
especially on military matters.
  When the U.S. sends its sons and daughters into harm's way, it must 
only be done to protect America's vital national security interests and 
where there is a clear plan to advance those interests.
  We know our Nation is insolvent, with a national debt of over $14 
trillion. Our troops are already overextended, we're hearing, in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the administration is talking 
about defense spending cuts at the very same time it's piling on this 
new mission, a humanitarian mission, a narrow humanitarian mission, 
we're told, on top of all our other commitments.
  Now what gives? This Congress needs to be heard. Our President has 
failed to properly define what vital national security interests 
justify this military intervention, and with this resolution, we give 
him 14 days to do so. Sadly and ironically, by becoming involved in 
Libya, our NATO alliance, which does remain a vitally important 
national security interest, may well have been put at risk.
  This Congress will be heard.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, regarding H. Con. 
Res. 51 and H. Res. 292, both resolutions have imperfections. I 
strongly support the sentiment behind the Kucinich resolution but do 
not think it would be responsible to compel action in such a short time 
period. Regrettably, the Boehner resolution accomplishes little. 
However, it makes a clear statement that I agree with, which is that 
American troops should not be on the ground in Libya.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Boehner 
resolution on Libya. As a combat veteran myself, I am extremely 
concerned any time that we commit to using our armed forces to support 
military actions, and I believe that close scrutiny of our country's 
involvement in the NATO-led operation is essential.
  I understand the frustration being expressed by many here today about 
their level of consultation in the decision to commence military 
operations in Libya, but, as my colleague from the Armed Services 
Committee Adam Smith noted, Congressional leaders were invited to a 
White House briefing and substantial information has been provided to 
Congress since then.
  Based on my personal experience as Chairman of the House Intelligence 
Committee, the Obama Administration's level of consultation with 
Congress on these sorts of issues is much more extensive and timely 
than during the Bush Administration.
  I, myself, had additional questions which were not fully addressed by 
this week's briefings, and, while my colleagues were debating the rule 
for this resolution, I simply called the White House to request the 
information demanded in this resolution. Much of the information was 
provided immediately, with the rest due back in the next few days. And 
when I asked the White House about requests for information they had 
received on operations in Libya, they told me they had responded to all 
Congressional requests for briefings.

[[Page H4008]]

  Debating the bill before us may provide a convenient opportunity for 
opponents of the President to make political statements, but it does so 
at the expense of our troops who are actively engaged in combat 
operations. This resolution threatens our critical NATO alliance and 
emboldens our enemies.
  The Boehner resolution--like the Kucinich measure which we are also 
debating today--potentially sends the message to our NATO allies that 
the United States does not stand by its commitments. At a time when we 
are relying more and more on our NATO allies to support the joint 
mission in Afghanistan, now is not the time to turn our back on NATO.
  Beyond straining relations with our closest allies, this resolution 
sends an even more dangerous message to Colonel Qaddafi. This 
resolution is effectively telling a despotic dictator, who has murdered 
and terrorized his own citizens, that he can simply wait out the 
military effort to protect the Libyan people because the United States 
will not hold true to its word.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, as a combat veteran, and 
as an American, I will continue to ask the hard questions of our 
military and civilian leaders about military operations over Libya. But 
I will not vote for a measure that I believe threatens the security and 
safety of our country and undermines our President.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, more than two months after stating 
that our military action in Libya would be over in ``days, not weeks,'' 
President Obama has yet to explain to the American people what our 
mission in Libya is, how it will be conducted, and when it will be 
completed. He has failed to explain how our military involvement in 
Libya fits with our policy interests in the Middle East and northern 
Africa. Most importantly, he has ignored his constitutional 
responsibility to uphold federal law by choosing not to acquire 
authorization from Congress for our involvement there.
  That is why I cosponsored Mr. Turner's resolution disapproving of the 
President's actions, and that is why I joined my House colleagues today 
in demanding action from the President.
  The President must follow the law and seek approval for this military 
action from Congress. In doing so, he must explain some basic facts, 
such as whether the removal of Moammar Qaddafi is part of the mission, 
how stability will be promoted in the region if Qaddafi is removed from 
power, and who among the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya should be 
supported in the event that he is removed.
  Instead of following the clear path of seeking congressional approval 
as outlined in federal law, the President unilaterally escalated our 
military efforts in Libya after assuring us they would be scaled back. 
Now, some in the Obama administration are saying we should put boots on 
the ground in support of further NATO actions. This is the opposite of 
what the President promised and contrary to the will of the House.
  Congress appropriately shows a certain deference to the commander-in-
chief when it comes to national security decisions, as we must always 
have the ability to quickly respond to threats to our sovereignty and 
our interests around the world. Further, Congress must not direct troop 
movements or set timelines for our military operations, as such 
decisions should be left to our highly skilled commanders on the 
ground. But our deference is contingent upon the President respecting 
the Founders' intent for the primary role of Congress in providing for 
our defense and security needs. It does not change the fact that the 
President is obliged to seek congressional approval and to explain how 
our mission in Libya is vital to our national security.
  The brave men and women in our armed forces, as always, are 
performing their duties with the greatest expertise and professionalism 
of any military in the world. The issue at hand is the failure of the 
President to seek congressional approval required by law, and the 
failure of the President to tell Congress and the American people the 
details of our mission.
  The American people will always stand with those who seek freedom and 
self-determination. Today's vote reaffirms that it is vital the 
President obey the rule of law in doing so.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, like many members of this body, I have 
been outraged by the President's failure to comply with the War Powers 
Act and to define the U.S. mission in Libya. This Congress must not 
neglect its responsibility and authority regarding the use of force in 
Libya, and the debate we are having today is long overdue.
  I think most Americans, including myself, agree that seeing Moammar 
Gadhafi and his regime of thugs removed from power would be a good 
thing. However, I think most Americans, including myself, also feel 
strongly that American forces should not be committed to this kind of 
mission without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned a country where the executive branch 
and the legislative branch share the responsibility regarding the use 
of force. President Obama has not sought the consent of the Congress in 
terms of involving American forces in Libya and that is why we are 
having this debate today.
  I rise in support of H. Res. 292. This resolution demands that the 
President provide answers about our involvement in the conflict in 
Libya, including the President's justification for not seeking 
Congressional authorization for this action. The resolution gives the 
President 14 days to respond to this request. The President should take 
very seriously this resolution. And our leadership in Congress should 
be vigilant to demand a full and clear response from the President. 
This resolution also gives adequate notice to NATO and our other allies 
of the concerns of the House before the House takes further action. The 
further action must take note of the President's failure to comply with 
the War Powers Act and notwithstanding that fact must also take note of 
our Nation's foreign policy interests and efforts to combat terrorism.
  H. Res. 292 is an important first step in restoring the balance that 
our Founding Fathers envisioned, that our legislative and executive 
branches share the responsibility regarding the use of U.S. force. 
However, the action taken today should not be the last step. In 14 
days, the House of Representatives should reconvene to evaluate our 
continued involvement in Libya. We must then make hard decisions about 
the operation in Libya and the role of the United States in this 
conflict. I hope my colleagues will join me in remaining vigilant and 
demanding accountability from the White House.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H. Con. Res. 51, ``Directing the President, Pursuant to Section (c) 
of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces 
from Libya,'' I support the War Powers Resolution however I cannot 
support a resolution which requires the President to withdraw all 
United States Armed forces within 15 days of its adoption.
  As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United 
States. This Concurrent Resolution is a reminder to the American people 
that we must firmly hold true to our constitutional duties. We have the 
power to ensure the Executive does not overstep its bounds. As Members 
of Congress we can exercise our power through appropriation, the 
appointment process, exercising oversight over the Executive, enactment 
legislation, or even establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse 
of power by the administration.
  Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers had long argued 
about which branch of government has the power to decide whether the 
nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches has 
not always taken place.
  In 1973, the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) was passed 
over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures for 
Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. 
Armed Forces into hostilities.
  Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause 
which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to 
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not 
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the 
Constitution in the Government of the United States . . .''.
  The policy behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander 
in Chief, to deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised 
only pursuant to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory 
authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the 
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' 
Pursuant to this authority, the President ``in every possible 
instance'' shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed 
Forces, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces 
remain in hostile situations.
  As we consider the War Powers Resolution, we must also consider facts 
surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya and the 
consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan 
people.
  I believe in the Constitution and the importance of maintaining the 
power of Congress in asserting when international conflicts warrant 
U.S. military involvement. I call upon the President to issue a report 
detailing the current status of the United States military forces in 
Libya within the next 30 days.
  We must not forget the bloodshed that continues to take place in 
Libya. The people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for 
democracy. This conflict began in Libya four months ago when Colonel 
Gaddafi failed to do what was right for his country and its people. 
Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt

[[Page H4009]]

the painful consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil 
liberties were infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of 
all, many Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed 
under the command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a 
conflict with a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were 
authorized by the hand of the Libyan leader himself.
  The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated and continues to be 
encouraged by the very man charged with protecting the Libyan people. 
The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside help. The question 
is no longer whether or not Libya is in a critical condition. I call on 
my fellow Members of Congress to continue to condemn the violence 
taking place in Libya today.
  Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the 
will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya 
faced. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests 
of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi chose to remain steadfast to the status 
quo--to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of 
blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake. 
The reality of the situation is this: it was Gaddafi's refusal to 
contemplate the circumstances in Libya that led to the unnecessary loss 
of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we deliberate the 
role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of 
innocent people.
  We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight 
for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life.
  Gaddafi has a long record of bloodshed and blood continues to run in 
the streets of Libya. We cannot stand by and do nothing, and America 
cannot do this alone. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United 
Nations, the African Union, and other world groups to stop the 
slaughter and violence against the people of Libya.''

  As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in 
calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight 
for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
  I stand with the people of Libya fighting for peace and freedom. It 
is clear that NATO has taken the Lead in protecting the Libyan People.


                             FACTS ON NATO

  For over two months NATO-led airstrikes in Libya have inflicted 
serious damage upon the Qaddafi regime's war machine, yet loyalist 
forces continue to demonstrate cohesiveness and operational superiority 
over besieged rebel forces. Still, some analysts suggest the stalemate 
is now yielding to a war of attrition favoring the rebels. Rebel combat 
skills have improved, as has their arsenal (which now reportedly 
includes vehicle-mounted antiaircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and 
mortars). During the week of May 11th, rebel forces succeeded in 
capturing Misratah, which had been the scene of the heaviest fighting 
since the conflict began. With control of the air and sea ports, rebels 
have developed a means to resupply and reinforce Misratah from the east 
while simultaneously supporting resistance in the west. Meanwhile fuel 
shortages in regime-held areas are taking a toll, as demonstrated by an 
attack over the weekend against reporters during a state-supervised 
trip to the Tunisian border. Fierce fighting continues across the 
Nafusa mountain range, which cuts across the desert south of Tripoli to 
the western border with Tunisia. At least four Grad rockets fired from 
Libya on May 16th landed in Tunisia near the Dahiba border crossing. 
Tunisian authorities have warned that it will report Libya to the 
Security Council if loyalist forces continue firing ammunition into 
Tunisia.
  As rebels consolidate recent gains, NATO has proven to be the 
equalizing force. NATO have targeted major command centers near Tripoli 
and Brega and surface-to-air missile launchers in Sirte and Al Khums. 
On May 19th NATO destroyed at least eight naval ships after it was 
verified that the Libyan navy had tried to mine the rebel-controlled 
port of Misratah. That same day NATO blocked a Maltese-flagged ship 
from delivering a consignment of fuel intended for regime forces. 
Airstrikes against a compound in Tripoli on May 1st reportedly killed 
Qaddafi's youngest son Saif al-Arab and three grandchildren. Direct 
lines of communication have been established between NATO and 
opposition headquarters in Bengahzi, thereby enhancing NATO's 
operational effectiveness. Previously, opposition forces have faced 
accidental strikes by NATO aircraft after failing to identify 
themselves and shifting to the use of armored vehicles without 
communicating with the coalition.
  The NATO air mission has conducted nearly 8000 sorties, including 
3025 strike sorties, since assuming control of the operation on March 
23rd. The NATO maritime component has conducted more than 1000 hailings 
in the embargo area, boarded 48 ships, and turned away 7 ships.
  The African Union continues to press for a peace deal that was 
accepted by Qaddafi but rejected by the opposition because it would 
leave Qaddafi in power. Turkey also has proposed a roadmap to establish 
an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, secure humanitarian aid 
corridors, and advance ``a political process for a transition. However, 
Turkey has not yet provided an implementation strategy other than 
making it clear that Qaddafi must go.
  After the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, engaged in peace 
talks with Qaddafi most of the world believed the bloodshed would end. 
Today, it is clear that Qaddafi is going to continue to fight to stay 
in power.
  As it stands, the United States already has authorized a drawdown in 
nonlethal defense articles and services valued at $25 million to assist 
the Transitional National Council (TNC) and an additional $53.5 million 
in humanitarian assistance. It was announced on May 5th that the 
Administration now is seeking legislation to allow them to ``vest,'' or 
confiscate, ``assets and property held by the government of Libya, 
including the Central Bank of Libya, in the jurisdiction of the United 
States and invest all or part of that in any agency or individual 
designated by the President to provide humanitarian relief and protect 
civilians in Libya.'' The United States currently holds $33 billion in 
frozen Libyan assets and property, of which $150 million has been 
proposed for vesting. Senator Kerry has suggested to reporters that he 
will soon introduce the requested legislation.
  We can not stand by and watch as the people of Libya suffer. We need 
and must provide humanitarian aid. Americans have always come to aid of 
their neighbors in times of crisis. Thus far, the United States has 
provided over $53.5 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Libya 
while the European Commission has provided nearly $55.4 million. On May 
18, the UN launched a revised Regional Flash Appeal for the Libyan 
Crisis, increasing the appeal from $310 million to $407.8 million. To 
date, the UN has received $175 million in contributions or 43% 
toward the appeal and an additional $106 million for humanitarian 
activities not listed in the appeal. The UN evacuated its international 
staff from Tripoli on May 1st but maintains a presence in Benghazi. 
Humanitarian access inside Libya remains severely constrained. Of 
particular concern are the besieged western towns of Zintan, Nalut, 
Zawiyah and Yifran.

  Over 807,000 people have fled to neighboring Chad, Egypt, Niger, 
Algeria and Tunisia since the start of the crisis. Additionally, up to 
200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Brega, Ras Lanuf, and 
Ajdabiya are in eastern Libya.
  We must continue to remember the context upon which we are currently 
operating in the world today. The Middle East is finally awaking to 
democracy and freedom. Advancing these objectives also advances our 
nation's security.


                                 FACTS

  The people of Libya have suffered since the overthrow of King Idriss 
in 1969. Under the oppressive Qaddafi regime, basic human rights have 
been terminated, and too many lives have been lost.
  Since assuming power, Colonel Qaddafi has ignored the needs of the 
Libyan people, choosing to train other oppressive leaders in 
intelligence and weaponry. Qaddafi has given money to dictators such as 
Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor, and intervened in foreign wars 
instead of investing in education and infrastructure for the betterment 
of his own people.
  Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently 
reported the lack of free press and free speech in Libya. The State 
controls the media and speaking out against Qaddafi or his government 
is not only illegal, it is also deadly. Qaddafi and his army executed 
activists who opposed the government and broadcasted their deaths on 
television.
  Qaddafi was particularly intolerant of women and other minorities. 
Foreign Policy reports he established ``social rehabilitation'' centers 
where women who were designated financially or morally vulnerable were 
detained indefinitely. Homosexuality was deemed criminal, and punished 
with up to five years in jail.
  Since the outbreak of civil war in February, Qaddafi has shut down 
Internet communication in Libya, and abused and detained foreign 
journalists covering the rebellion.
  The International Federation for Human Rights has reported that 
commanders in the Libyan army executed hundreds of lower ranking 
soldiers for refusing to fire on protestors or defend Qaddafi.
  Colonel Qaddafi has utilized snipers, helicopters gunships, 
mercenaries and gangs of hired thugs to harm his own people throughout 
the course of the protests. Rebels taking to the streets demanding free 
elections were injured and killed.
  Because of the severe communication restrictions and limited access 
of journalists, estimates are extremely varied as to how many Libyans 
have been killed in this conflict. Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner 
for Human Rights at the United Nations estimates thousands have been 
killed or injured. The Libyan

[[Page H4010]]

National Transitional Council puts the death toll around 8,000.
  I am outraged at the story of Eman al-Obeidy who had the courage to 
report being raped by soldiers in the employ of Qaddafi. Because this 
young woman spoke out about the brutal crime she endured, she lives in 
fear of the repercussions. Ms. Al-Obeidy's story is a harsh and violent 
reflection of Qaddafi's regime and the somber reality that rape is a 
symptom of war. This violent sexual assault must be investigated, and 
Ms. Al-Obeidy's safety must be ensured. This brutal crime is further 
evidence of the cruelty of Colonel Qaddafi's regime. In addition, to 
killing thousands of innocent civilians, the Libyan government is also 
allowing violent discriminatory actions to be freely committed against 
the women of Libya. This is unacceptable, and is strong evidence that 
humanitarian efforts must be increased. I call on the Allied Nations to 
ensure Ms. Al-Obeidy's safe passage out of Libya. Further, I call on 
the United Nations to condemn these actions, and work to prevent their 
future occurrence.
  The Red Cross reports dangerously low amounts of medical supplies and 
food, as well as a refugee crisis as thousands flee the violence.
  There should be an increased emphasis on diplomacy. On May 20th it 
was reported that Shukri Ghanem, head of Libya's National Oil Company 
and former Prime Minister, had defected to Tunisia. On May 19th 
Secretary of State Clinton asserted that Qaddafi's wife Sophia and 
daughter Aicha had fled to Tunisia, though Tunisian authorities later 
denied the report. On May 9th it was reported that Egyptian authorities 
had placed Qaddafi's cousin Ahmed Gaddaf al-Dam under house arrest and 
planned to seize his assets before deporting him to Benghazi. On May 
4th, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court announced that 
he was seeking the arrest of three unnamed senior officials in the 
Libyan regime for war crimes and crimes against humanity. On May 3rd, 
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded that Qaddafi step 
down after attacks against foreign embassies in Tripoli forced Turkey 
to suspend diplomatic operations. Libyan diplomats subsequently were 
expelled from France and the UK. On May 2nd, Switzerland reported that 
the country had seized over $411 million in Libyan assets. The United 
States, the European Union, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and other 
countries previously enacted targeted sanctions against Qaddafi and his 
key supporters.
  The Founders distributed the decision to go to war between the two 
political branches to assure that the decision would be made carefully. 
The founding generation experienced the hardship of several wars and 
they knew war's human and financial costs. They understood that a 
strong executive who is already given the title ``Commander in Chief,'' 
might flex the country's military strength injudiciously. Giving 
Congress the essential power to declare war allows heads to cool, 
alternatives to be considered, and makes certain there is consensus if 
the country is called to fight. Therefore I voted against the 
meaningless H. Res. 292 that has no basis in law in order to be 
consistent in my support of Congress' authority to declare war and the 
War Powers Resolution (driven by the Vietnam War). I voted yes on H. 
Con. Res. 51 to allow the President to go to the Senate. The Resolution 
failed and I hope the President will approach Congress and consult so 
we can bring peace and an end to violence together.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehner 
resolution, H. Res. 292 and also to announce my opposition to the 
resolution offered by Mr. Kucinich.
  Let me be clear, I will never jeopardize support for our troops, and 
I will always maintain the proper level of deference and respect due 
the Commander in Chief in matters of war. But I do not believe the 
President of the United States has the authority to take America to war 
without congressional approval where our security and vital national 
interests are not directly threatened.
  The President told the American people in his address to the Nation 
on March 28, 2011, that it would be a mistake to broaden our mission. 
He said, ``We went down that road in Iraq.'' Now, more than seventy-
five days since hostilities began in Libya, it has become all too clear 
that the road we are currently taking is quite different from that we 
took in Iraq.
  In Iraq, we had a clear objective. We had congressional bipartisan 
approval in both Houses, international support, and through trial and 
the sacrifice of blood and treasure, we are now on the edge of victory. 
Here in Libya, there is no clear objective, no congressional approval, 
and uncertain international support. We are on a different road.
  Speaker Boehner's resolution before the House today, H. Res. 292, 
will prevent the President from committing American ground forces in 
Libya and requires the Administration to finally justify why it 
committed our military resources in Libya without seeking consultation 
from Congress. When passed, this resolution will also force the 
Administration to report to the Congress the political and military 
objectives regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn.
  Let me also speak to the resolution of the other gentleman from Ohio, 
Mr. Kucinich. I have never believed it to be wise to tell the enemy 
when you will quit fighting. More significantly, it cites the 
constitutionally dubious provisions of the War Powers Resolution and I 
cannot support it.
  In closing, let me just say that history has taught us that America 
has succeeded only when we have chosen to send our men and women into 
combat with a clear objective to win. In this instance, where the 
Administration has not demonstrated how American military involvement 
advances our national security interests and where the President has 
failed to provide the American people with a compelling reason to 
commit our Armed Forces, there is no clear objective to win.
  The Boehner resolution will force the Obama Administration to bring 
its case to the American public before further committing our men and 
women in Libya and I urge its immediate passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________