[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 92 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4540-H4550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AUTHORIZING LIMITED USE OF ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) authorizing the limited use 
of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in 
Libya, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gravity of the 
legislation before us, but I rise to make a point of order that this 
bill violates clause 11 of rule XXI. This section of the rule states 
that it shall not be in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution 
which has not been reported by a committee until it has been available 
to Members for 72 hours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 328, all points 
of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Can the Chair tell the House when H.R. 2278 
and H.J. Res. 68 were made available to Members?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has said that he 
will not bring a bill to the floor that has not been available for 72 
hours. Have these bills been available for 72 hours?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has once again not stated a 
proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the majority waiving the position of the 
Speaker, waiving the rule as it relates to the legislation before us?

[[Page H4541]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is engaging in 
debate and not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The fact of the matter is this bill has not 
been available for 72 hours, and not even 3 calendar days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized for debate 
at this point. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 328, the joint resolution is considered 
read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 68

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE LIMITED USE OF UNITED STATES 
                   ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to continue the 
     limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in 
     support of United States national security policy interests, 
     as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) as requested by the 
     Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, 
     and the Arab League.
       (b) Expiration of Authority.--The authorization for such 
     limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya expires 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 2. OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF UNITED STATES GROUND TROOPS.

       Consistent with the policy and statements of the President, 
     Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or 
     maintaining the presence of units and members of the United 
     States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose 
     of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense 
     of United States Government officials (including diplomatic 
     representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from 
     imminent danger.

     SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       The President shall consult frequently with Congress 
     regarding United States efforts in Libya, including by 
     providing regular briefings and reports as requested, and 
     responding to inquiries promptly. Such briefings and reports 
     shall include the following elements:
       (1) An updated description of United States national 
     security interests in Libya.
       (2) An updated statement of United States policy objectives 
     in Libya, both during and after Qaddafi's rule, and a 
     detailed plan to achieve them.
       (3) An updated and comprehensive list of the activities of 
     the United States Armed Forces in Libya.
       (4) An updated and detailed assessment of the groups in 
     Libya that are opposed to the Qaddafi regime, including 
     potential successor governments.
       (5) A full and updated explanation of the President's legal 
     and constitutional rationale for conducting military 
     operations in Libya consistent with the War Powers Resolution 
     (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint 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.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. 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 H.J. Res. 68.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support a complete U.S. withdrawal from NATO's 
Operation Unified Protector. I believe that it is necessary for U.S. 
Armed Forces to remain engaged in a limited capacity. However, I cannot 
support an authorization which constitutes our current level of 
engagement for an entire year. This is what is proposed in H.J. Res. 
69, offered by my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I therefore 
must rise in opposition to his resolution.
  This resolution not only authorizes U.S. military engagement in Libya 
far beyond even the 90-day NATO extension, but it justifies U.S. 
military engagement in Libya as undertaken to enforce a United Nations 
Security Council resolution and at the request of the Transitional 
National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League. So 
we must ask: Where is the United States Congress in this equation?
  If an authorization resolution had been put forward in February, I 
might have been able to support it. I understand the mission. But in 
the intervening period, conditions have changed significantly on the 
ground in Libya, within NATO, with our NATO partners, and here in the 
U.S. Decisive action with congressional authorization at the outset 
might have solved this problem quickly, but now we have drifted into an 
apparently open-ended commitment with goals that remain only vaguely 
defined. And that is at the heart of the problem, Mr. Speaker.
  The President asserted, ``These strikes will be limited in their 
nature, duration, and scope.'' Well, it is now day 97--97--of our 
involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities regarding Libya; yet 
Qadhafi still clings to power and the opposition appears to be no 
closer to a decisive victory. Command for the military operation has 
been transferred to NATO; yet the constrained role the President has 
said is being played by U.S. forces in Libya still includes nearly one-
quarter of the total sorties flown in Libya; suppression of the enemy 
air defense through missile strikes; strikes by unmanned Predators on 
Qadhafi targets; nearly 70 percent of the mission's intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance; and over 75 percent of all aerial 
refueling. Yet the President has yet to explain just what American 
interests are at stake and just what outcomes he is hoping to achieve.
  The resolution offered by our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, and adopted 
by this Chamber on June 3 posed specific questions that required 
straight answers. Instead, we received a letter and accompanying 
documents from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative 
Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, 
which stated that U.S. actions in Libya were ``taken in response to 
direct appeals from the Libyan people and acting with a mandate from 
the United Nations.''

                              {time}  1040

  The administration proceeded to justify its current policy by 
asserting that U.S. military operations in Libya do not constitute 
hostilities. This argument is so incredulous that even the attorneys in 
the Office of the Legal Counsel do not agree. Therefore, I am not 
optimistic that the reporting provisions in the resolution we are 
considering today, which calls for ``a full and updated explanation of 
the President's legal and constitutional rationale for conducting 
military operations in Libya,'' will be fulfilled in a fulsome manner, 
respectful of congressional prerogatives.
  Again, I must underscore that I do not support a complete withdrawal 
from our commitments concerning Libya. That would be dangerous. That 
would be ill-advised. A complete withdrawal of all U.S. military assets 
from the Libya operations would undermine our intelligence efforts and 
our foreign policy goals, and would all but assure a victory for 
Qadhafi. It can lead to greater instability, which could affect NATO 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at a critical stage of transition. 
There are also proliferation concerns at stake, particularly as an 
increasing number of weapons have moved into the region and reportedly 
fallen into the hands of extremist organizations, including al Qaeda in 
the Islamic Maghreb. The Qadhafi regime is an unpredictable regime that 
has chemical weapons, including mustard and possibly sarin gas.
  While a complete withdrawal is unacceptable, the resolution before us 
is also unacceptable. The resolution effectively ratifies all that the 
President has done, and it would grant him the blessings of Congress to 
continue on his present course. The resolution before us would enable 
mission creep, rather than setting clear parameters for U.S. 
engagement. I must therefore oppose this resolution.

[[Page H4542]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I 
yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. It's high time that Congress asserts its 
authority and engages proactively with the administration on this most 
serious question of war. I just wonder where my colleagues have been 
all these years that we have had Presidents and war. It will be 
interesting to see a matchup of their votes with this one.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation authorizes the limited use of 
United States forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. This 
legislation is a bipartisan effort to prevent the kind of open-ended, 
indefinite military commitments we have elsewhere in the world. 
Register that as Afghanistan and Iraq. This resolution is a companion 
to forward-leaning Senate legislation introduced by Senators John 
Kerry, John McCain, Benjamin Cardin, and Richard Durbin. Immediately 
after they introduced the resolution in the Senate, I brought it to the 
House so that we can make progress on this very important debate before 
us.
  If I had my way, Mr. Speaker--and I don't--we wouldn't be in Libya at 
all. But I don't have my way, and here we are, and the solution now is 
not to cut off all funding and suddenly walk out. We have a 
responsibility to our allies. As long as we are continuing to supply 
logistics, materiel, and critical intelligence and operational 
capabilities--and no boots on the ground--we must support our allies 
who are carrying out the direct combat operations. We must stand with 
NATO.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, if I had my way--and I don't--there are revisions 
to this resolution that I believe the Congress ought to consider. I 
maintain that a better date to end the authorization would be the end 
of September, and certainly no later than December. The 1-year 
authorization limits the President's ability to engage our Armed Forces 
indefinitely so that we don't find ourselves neck deep in yet another 
war.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. This authorization prohibits the use of 
ground forces and at the same time requires the President to 
continually report to Congress. I would rather us use some of Libya's 
frozen assets so that we could have them pay for the mission that they 
began.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Dr. Paul, a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that endorses the policies that 
have been going on for 4 months. Not only has the Congress basically 
been strong in opposition to what has been going on, the American 
people are even more so. So what this resolution does is endorses 
exactly what has been going on--another unconstitutional war, 
involvement and justification under NATO and the United Nations, doing 
it secretly. There's an attempt to restrain the funding of this effort 
over in Libya. How can we restrain it, because we've never authorized 
it. Restrain unauthorized funds? The funds weren't authorized. The 
President just goes and does it.
  What we're talking about here is the challenge for the Congress on 
looking at the unitary President. The unitary President has been around 
for quite a few years. That means that Presidents do what they want, 
and the Congress just acknowledges it. So that is what we're doing. 
This is what this resolution does. It acknowledges and gives authority 
to the President to pursue this war, which is actually what he has been 
doing. Obviously, H.J. Res. 68, for me, is a very, very strong ``no'' 
because the last thing we need to do is to be giving explicit support 
and explicit authorization for the very policies that so many people 
now think are ill-advised.
  This resolution also says you don't send in ground troops. Well, 
that's fine, no ground troops. But in this day and age, war can go on 
for a long time without the ground troops. It happened to a degree in 
Bosnia. But it didn't exempt such things as special forces, the CIA. 
The CIA has been in Libya, and I'm sure they will be, as they are in 
many, many other hundreds of countries. Contractors. When we can't send 
in troops, we send in contractors. We have as many contractors in 
Afghanistan as we do the military. So a couple thousand troops come out 
of Afghanistan and nothing changes as we add more contractors. Nothing 
ever changes.
  But this whole idea of this effort to legalize the bombing, at least 
give the authority to the President to continue this, is foolhardy. How 
many more wars can we withstand? What number is this? This is I think 
number five. Today, in the papers, number six is coming. How long 
before we're in Syria? Go into Syria tomorrow and in 90 days we'll 
start talking about Syria and proper authority.
  Instead, we in Congress have given up our responsibility for war. 
Because the responsibility of going to war should have been and still 
remains constitutionally mandated that the Congress makes these 
decisions. The President is not supposed to get us engaged in war 
without Congress' authority. Too often we say, Whatever you need, we'll 
endorse it.
  We have another resolution coming up shortly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. PAUL. Unfortunately, I think the next resolution, H.R. 2278, 
isn't much different because it has too many exceptions. It says: Deny 
funding. But there are too many exceptions, and the exceptions are to 
allow the very things the President is currently doing.
  So both resolutions have serious shortcomings. Both resolutions 
should be defeated if you're opposed to this war in Libya.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott.)
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's 
response to Libya.
  A week after it started, I received a phone call from a very 
distinguished professor at the University of Washington, who had left 
and was back in Libya. He is now the Finance Minister, Dr. Tarhouni. He 
said to me, Please give us air cover. If you can protect us from the 
air, we can take care of it ourselves on the ground.

                              {time}  1050

  As I listened to him, I thought of an experience I had with President 
Clinton. I flew to Africa, to Kigali, and met with people who had been 
part of the massacre--the maimed. Then I saw the President go into the 
hangar and speak to 500 Rwandans and apologize for not having responded 
to the Rwandan massacre on the first day. This was a situation where 
the Libyans were asking for it. It was one where the Arab League was 
asking for it. This was not something that was cooked up in the White 
House, created and sent out. This was done in response to people on the 
ground.
  My belief is that these kinds of situations require the President to 
act decisively. He did and I support him.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Judge Poe, vice chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I appreciate the chairlady for yielding me time on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, going to war is a big deal. That's why our forefathers 
put within the Constitution that when America is to go to war it is 
Congress that is to lead that charge, that it is Congress to authorize 
America's going to war. That has been the law in the Constitution since 
it was written.
  Then came the War Powers resolution, and Congress decided that it 
would give a little of that constitutional authority to the President 
for a period of days until he justified his action before Congress. We 
can argue whether the War Powers resolution is constitutional or not. 
But in any event, Congress has not led America to war in Libya.

[[Page H4543]]

  The President has.
  The President made that decision.
  As James Madison, the author of the Constitution, said in a letter to 
Thomas Jefferson--and I paraphrase--it has been the history of peoples 
that it has been the executive branch that has led a country to war, 
and that's why our Constitution prevented kings and dictators and even 
Presidents from leading this country to war. It must be authorized by 
Congress.
  But now we find ourselves in America's third war--in Libya. The 
President took us to war. Now, on this day, we are being asked to 
support and justify that war in this resolution. I vote ``no'' on this 
resolution. We have no business in Libya. Even the administration has 
said it is not in the national security interest of the United States 
to be in Libya.
  So why are we there? We are there because we don't like Muammar 
Qadhafi. There are a lot of bad guys in the world, and if we start 
picking them off one at a time we will be at war with most of the 
world, because most of the world is led by rogue dictators--or bad 
guys. We have no business being in Libya. We have no business 
justifying this war on the House floor.
  It is Congress' responsibility to defund any further action in Libya, 
and that is what we should do. It's unfortunate we don't have that up-
or-down vote. I wish we could vote up or down today on that issue and 
let the House decide if we should be at war in Libya. $700 million has 
already been spent on the war in Libya. It's hard to figure out where 
that money came from. I get different answers from different people 
about where the President got that money. Maybe we should spend that 
$700 million in the United States, building America rather than blowing 
up Libya. I think that would be a better use of funds.
  We need to take care of America. We shouldn't be involved in somebody 
else's civil war in Libya. Who are the rebels? We're not sure who they 
are either. They may be extremists. They may be patriots. They may be 
of democratic philosophy. We have no idea.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POE of Texas. We don't know who the rebels are. They may be worse 
than Muammar Qadhafi. Now, isn't that a lovely situation if they take 
control. We replace an oppressive regime with an extremist radical 
regime, and that's all because we are in a war that was unauthorized by 
this Congress.
  Cut off all funds. Vote against this resolution.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
gentleman with the opposite view of this issue than I have, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. What? We don't have enough wars going on? A war in 
Iraq, a war in Afghanistan? We need one more war? We have to wage war 
against another nation which did not attack us? We have to wage war 
against another nation which does not represent an actual or imminent 
threat to the United States?
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I have been all over this 
country, and I haven't had a single person come up to me to tell me, 
``You know, Dennis, what America needs is another war.'' The last thing 
we need is to be voting to go to war. There are plenty of reasons to 
oppose the war in Libya:
  It's unconstitutional. Article I, section 8 has given the Congress 
the power to declare war.
  It's illegal. The War Powers resolution was passed over Presidential 
veto to allow the President latitude to respond when there is an 
imminent threat to the U.S. while retaining the constitutional duty of 
Congress. Even the President's top legal advisers at the Pentagon and 
the Department of Justice determined that the War Powers resolution 
applies to the war in Libya.
  Another reason is that Americans don't want this war. A poll taken at 
the beginning of the month by CBS found that six in 10 Americans do not 
think the United States should be involved in a conflict within Libya. 
Just 30 percent of Americans in that poll thought the United States was 
doing the right thing by taking part in the current military conflict. 
A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike think the 
U.S. should not be involved in Libya.
  Next, this war is a distraction. Our flailing economy demands the 
full attention of Congress and the President. The American people have 
little patience, or less, especially for a war of choice.
  Then there is the cost of the war, Mr. Speaker. We've spent $750 
million so far. If we keep going on, it will cost billions.
  We have to end this war. Vote against this authorization.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I stand today in support of this resolution.
  The world is watching our actions today. The world is asking: What 
are we going to do? We talk all the time about allowing Europe to take 
the lead in certain areas, about allowing NATO to take the lead in 
foreign policy, and they have done that. Now will we today pull the rug 
out from under them simply because we have a dispute between the 
legislative and the executive branches?
  I think the President should have come to this Chamber, too, but he 
didn't. Yet the wrong thing to do is to pull funding, and the right 
thing to do is to give him the authorization to go into Libya. A 
slaughter almost occurred, and we were able to stop it by our presence 
there. The vote we take in the House today will have implications far 
beyond our shores and far into the future. Finally, I am reminded of a 
quote by George Washington, in which he states, ``Liberty, when it 
begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.''
  I support this resolution and would urge all my colleagues to do the 
same. In doing so, we will be supporting the planting of freedom and 
liberty in the Middle East.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking 
member of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hastings amendment.
  In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower 
and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate 
and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The United 
States' effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of 
nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations 
Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect 
Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of 
Muammar Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising, 
inspired by the Arab Spring, was to use force against civilians and 
opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international 
outcry and the U.N. action.
  In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our 
involvement in this military action. While the direct U.S. leadership 
of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the 
NATO operation. In this Chamber today, we are considering both the 
resolution authorizing the continued use of limited U.S. involvement in 
this effort or our immediate withdrawal from it.
  While I believe it would have been more appropriate for the 
President, under the terms of the War Powers Act, to come to Congress 
earlier, I believe the language offered by Hastings of Florida, similar 
to the language introduced in the other body by Senators McCain and 
Kerry, is the appropriate course of action at this time.

                              {time}  1100

  The language preserves the understanding between the administration 
and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time 
and were not asked for by the rebels.
  The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr. 
Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe 
this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our 
relationship with NATO allies.
  And when I hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the House

[[Page H4544]]

Chamber speaking in favor of abandoning the cause, I'm reminded of 
Ronald Reagan who attacked Libya with air power and called Qadhafi the 
``mad dog of the Middle East.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 90 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. We should learn from the past. There are indeed times when 
American national interests should overtake political or partisan 
political interests.
  I remember the debate on Kosova 12 years ago. Congress refused to 
authorize American action by a split vote. That was a tragic mistake. 
House Republican leadership opposed that resolution: 187 noes against 
31 yeses. I believe it was clear then that Republicans would not have 
opposed the Kosova resolution, at least in those numbers, if George 
Bush had been President.
  Today, there are echoes from Kosova on this Libyan resolution. The 
Republicans should not make the same mistake again. We should join 
together to support the Hastings' resolution that's consistent with the 
War Powers Act.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hastings 
resolution.
  I think it's important to remember that U.S. military force is a very 
awesome thing and should only be employed in very select circumstances. 
We misused that power when it came to Iraq, and we used that power in 
an improper way and too long in Afghanistan. But when people are being 
slaughtered by dictators around the world, where massive loss of lives 
and innocents are at stake, I think it is appropriate for the United 
States to step up and protect those people.
  Yes, we do have business in Libya. We have business in protecting 
mass murder from happening and stopping mass murder from happening 
around the world. We have business in stopping the destabilization of 
regions like north Africa. We have business in making sure that the 
peaceful resolutions in Egypt and in Tunisia are not undermined. We 
have business in making sure that dictators like Ali Saleh in Yemen and 
Bashar al-Assad in Syria are not emboldened and the signal does not go 
out to them that they can continue to wipe out their population and 
nobody cares.
  I believe that if I was in this Congress when Rwanda or Srebrenica or 
Darfur were happening, I pray that I would stand up and say that those 
people need to have some protection and that the most powerful Nation 
in the world shouldn't stand by while innocent women and children are 
being mowed down, and I hope today that my colleagues will join in that 
because it's the right thing to do.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman 
from California has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
Florida has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished Speaker, and to 
the distinguished Members that are on this floor, what a heck of a 
position to be in.
  Let me make it very clear this is a set of circumstances that frames 
itself around the Constitution, the War Powers resolution, that 
indicates that Congress must be consulted. But I am in the middle of my 
actions that took place months ago or many weeks ago as the crisis and 
the murderous acts of Colonel Qadhafi began to seize his people. And we 
went to the Libyan Embassy to ask for Colonel Qadhafi to step down, and 
we joined with the then-Ambassador in his courageous act. Colonel 
Qadhafi is known to oppress his people; to deny rights of freedom of 
press and speech, as well as association; to train dictators in 
oppression and intelligence; and the murderous acts still go on.
  But it is a crisis when we have an administration, unfortunately, 
that has not seen fit to undertake the consultation that is necessary. 
Yet I believe that we should finish the task, and it is different from 
Iraq and it is different from Afghanistan. We have a time certain and, 
as well, we have the Arab League that has asked us to stand with them 
against the oppression of one of its members.
  This is a door opener to say to the people that we have asked to be 
with us to go against terrorist acts to stand for democracy. So this is 
a devastating position to put the Members of Congress in, but we must 
do our duty today, and I believe that it is good to say that the 
Hastings amendment is the framework, though I would prefer 6 months, 
and I hope there is an opportunity to address this for a limited time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker and Members, apparently the House has 
debated for more than almost 40 years ago the War Powers agreement or 
War Powers law. What we have before us today is a way in which we can 
effect that law and put it into place, and there is reason for us to 
support the Hastings amendment or the Hastings resolution, and there 
are four reasons.
  First of all, there's a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we 
went into this in the first place, the United Nations resolution on the 
obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat.
  Secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the United 
Nations, by NATO, by the Arab League, in a most unusual situation 
asking for support of the Europeans and the United States in an Arab 
country.
  Finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do 
it in a very limited way. The resolution does that. It provides for a 
very limited scope and a limited period of time and, therefore, it is 
in order; and it appropriately puts the Congress, both Houses if this 
should pass the Senate, in support of the operation, thereby fulfilling 
the War Powers Act.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honored to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human 
Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank our distinguished chairwoman for 
yielding and thank her for her leadership today and every day on human 
rights issues.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68.
  You know, when U.S. intervention in Libya began last March, I 
raised--and I was among many--several still unanswered questions about 
our involvement. They included questions about the identity and the 
aims of the rebels, the varying Presidential statements that seemed to 
shift like the wind, the level of U.S. involvement, the possibility of 
Qadhafi retaliating against American interests outside of Libya, and 
whether U.S. ground troops might well be requested at some point, 
although the resolution seems to clearly say that that would not be 
authorized by Congress.
  In the course of the debate over the constitutionality and viability 
of the War Powers resolution, these questions have remained unanswered. 
The President has refused to seek congressional approval of his action 
or even to provide a full explanation of his decisions. As the NATO 
campaign continues, new questions have arisen about U.S. participation 
and what is now NATO's involvement in Libya.

                              {time}  1110

  Let me just say mention was made a moment ago by Mr. Levin about 
Kosova and that somehow the Republican opposition to military action in 
Kosova was political. It absolutely was not! I remember because I was 
very involved in trying to mitigate the Balkan troubles. I visited 
there many times, visited with Milosevic, the dictator in Belgrade. 
Actually, I was in Vukovar right before it fell.
  So, frankly, the statement that was made earlier I think did a 
disservice to those of us who were not supportive of the Kosova 
operation. There was no plan to war protect the Kosovar Albanians. We 
used air power. Milosevic invaded with ground trops. If Members

[[Page H4545]]

will remember, that country's population was literally, literally 
pushed out into Macedonia and elsewhere--about 1.6 million refugees--
because there was no plan when Milosevic sent in the ground troops and 
killed thousands of people because we had no plan to protect them. An 
estimated 10,000 people were killed.
  So the revisionism that somehow Republican opposition to the war was 
a political calculation falls very, very far from the truth. And it's a 
cheap shot. I actually chaired hearings during the war and stated my 
oppositions based on principle, as did other Members. So I expect--and 
hope--unfounded revisionism would be avoided and that there would not 
be that look-back that does a disservice on the issue at hand to 
principled Republican opposition.
  So, who exactly are we backing in Libya? What justification under 
international law is there for directing both U.S. and foreign 
government assets to a rebel entity that is not democratically elected 
and, therefore, not necessarily representative of the people of that 
country? We don't know.
  In addition, a senior NATO official told CNN on June 9 that Qadhafi 
``was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign.'' Even though this 
was expressed as a NATO position, are we now to understand that the 
Obama administration is sanctioning the killing of foreign leaders? 
Again, pursuant to what international criteria or legal justification?
  Mr. Speaker, again, I call on my colleagues to vote down this 
resolution that is offered, H.J. Res. 68.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, today I say that we have an opportunity. The 
camera of history is rolling, is watching what we do today. We can 
authorize the President to continue the limited use of the United 
States services, working in conjunction with NATO today so that we can 
show that we are united with our allies.
  Think about what history will say 50 years from now. We have an 
individual who was going to massacre his individuals. And by us 
stepping in, working in conjunction with our NATO allies, we are saving 
thousands of lives. What would have taken place historically if we had 
allowed the annihilation of the Libyan people? Let's stick together on 
this.
  From its inception, this has been an international initiative to 
enforce U.N. Resolution 1973 and the response to the request of Libya's 
Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the 
Arab League. President Obama deployed U.S. assets early, said he will 
continue just with what we have, our special assets, and then have no 
troops on the ground. The camera of history is rolling. Let's work 
together. Let's pass this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we were asked to come into Libya by Libyans, 
by the Arab League, by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by the European 
Union, and by the United Nations Security Council. Today we are 
standing where we should be standing, with those who believe in 
freedom, in human rights, and in the rule of law.
  But also today, as we debate this issue, Muammar Qadhafi's forces 
continue their merciless assault against civilians and combatants 
alike, not just in Misratah but in the western mountains and cities 
throughout central Libya. The Libyan Transitional National Council, 
which needs our support, is extraordinarily short of weaponry, money, 
and training. But they are the boots on the ground, fighting and dying 
to dislodge Qadhafi, who is a bad guy, who did oversee the killing of 
189 innocent passengers on PanAm 103.
  We need to be on the other side, not giving comfort to Qadhafi so 
that he can thank us for the resolution and this vote as he thanked 
Speaker Boehner for his resolution last week. We need to make clear we 
don't support him. We do support people who are fighting for the same 
values that define our country; 38 of those people were killed just 
this week. To cut off operational funding for the NATO operation is to 
side with Qadhafi against the forces who are fighting for those values 
which define us.
  And, you know, the idea that this hasn't been explained sufficiently 
by the President is a bogus one. We have minds of our own. We know the 
facts. We can make a judgment. The right judgment is to side with the 
President and to continue this support to the Libyans until America 
shows all the people of the Arab world that it's true to its own values 
and principles.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, would you inform us as to the amount of time 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  There are two issues before Congress: one is the reassertion of its 
responsibility under article I and the War Powers Act; number two is 
the decision on the limited use of force for humanitarian missions in 
Libya. The Hastings resolution accomplishes both.
  It reasserts our authority under article I and the War Powers Act. It 
says, yes, we do support limited intervention with a role for the U.S. 
in saving lives in Libya. That mission is necessary to avert a 
humanitarian disaster. Two, the mission has broad international 
support, including from the Arab League. Three, the U.S. role is 
limited in scope: no boots on the ground. And, finally, we are, by 
acting, asserting our responsibility under the War Powers Act and our 
responsibility under article I.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I reserve the right to close, Mr. Speaker; so I 
will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are 90 days into this operation, and the majority is 
bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House. 
Let's just call it for what it is. They know it will fail. They want to 
continue to play games with U.S. national security.
  Let's be honest about what's happening here. The Republican 
leadership allowed this resolution to come to the floor for one reason 
and one reason only: They know it will fail, and they think its defeat 
will be a political defeat for the White House. If that type of 
trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. Speaker, I think our commitments to NATO and the humanitarian 
crisis that created the NATO operation in Libya are too important to be 
exploited for cynical political purposes. In my view, the perfect 
authorization would have been a 6-month authorization for a limited 
purpose with a limitation on that authorization with respect to a 
position the House has stood for the entire time, as has the President, 
and that is no boots on the ground.
  But the Republicans didn't give this side the choice of the 
resolution for authorization. They told us what the resolution for 
authorization would be, and that's a very unfortunate kind of a 
situation. So we will go through this process. And perhaps, at the end 
of the day, after this resolution fails, we will get another letter to 
the House of Representatives sent to the Speaker thanking us from 
Colonel Qadhafi for once again demonstrating that we want to send a 
message that he is going to prevail in this conflict.
  And when that happens, what do we think the dictator of Syria is 
going to think? Faced with the choice of change or quitting, he will 
hear the message: the way to survive, the way to hold onto power is for 
a despot to continue to kill his own people without the rest of the 
world doing anything.
  There are critical alliances at stake. There are critical interests 
at stake. The national security question is far beyond simply what is 
going to happen in Libya, but in its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia, 
throughout the Middle East and through the entire world, the message of 
trying to say that we're going to pull the plug on this particular 
operation.
  And heaven knows, we could spend time talking about the way the 
administration has handled it; but right now

[[Page H4546]]

we have one choice, to pull the plug on this baby, or to let it play 
out in a limited and responsible fashion, to achieve our goals and send 
a message that the civilized world is not going to stand for this kind 
of barbarity and brutality.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the joint resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, to wrap up on our side, I am proud and 
pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Griffin), a member of both the Committees on Foreign Affairs and 
Armed Services.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 68, which authorizes the President to continue 
military operations in Libya.
  I appreciate all the policy arguments that I've heard here today. But 
the question for me is, is it illegal or not? If it's a question of 
law, then all of the arguments about making this group mad or not being 
a good ally, et cetera, those are very persuasive; but those are not 
legal arguments. Those don't change whether the actions in Libya are 
constitutional or legal. Those are policy arguments.
  The President continues to be in violation of the War Powers 
resolution, which requires congressional approval for military action 
within 60 days of the initial use of our Armed Forces. That deadline 
expired long ago.
  The President continues to involve the U.S. military in this illegal 
conflict and has continually ignored requests to gain congressional 
approval.
  What's so hard, Mr. President, about coming to the House and 
consulting with the Congress? What's so hard about that? Other 
Presidents who may have had their doubts about the constitutionality of 
the War Powers resolution have still gone through the process to 
respect the people that are represented by this body.
  Reportedly, the President ignored advice from his top lawyers at the 
Pentagon and the Justice Department who said that he no longer had the 
legal authority to continue military action without congressional 
authorization.
  Furthermore, this is not a legal argument--but I think it's 
relevant--we're broke. The price tag of the military action in Libya 
has already cost the U.S. Government over $750 million. This resolution 
would authorize the President to continue military action in Libya for 
up to a year. That could result in billions of dollars of funding by 
the American taxpayer that we just can't afford.
  We cannot spend precious taxpayer funds to support this military 
action while the President flouts the law and Constitution.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The President's initial justification for our military intervention 
in Libya was that it was necessary to prevent the massacre of Libyan 
civilians by government forces in Benghazi, and that this would be 
strictly a humanitarian mission.
  As I noted back in March, deploying American warriors to protect 
civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause. Yet I also expressed 
my reservations at the time because I feared that the mission could 
result in a protracted stalemate. Although the President promised the 
American people that our involvement would be limited, a matter of 
weeks, not months, we find ourselves past the 3-month mark with no end 
in sight.
  This bill would authorize operations for up to a year. We're 
currently engaged in a war that is vital to our national security. In 
Afghanistan we're fighting extremists who sheltered the terrorist 
organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, and would 
again provide them with a sanctuary if given the chance. We're in the 
process of consolidating our victory in Iraq and still have 50,000 
troops there in harm's way.
  Indeed, a clear strategic vision is required to make any military 
intervention successful. Since this operation began, the connection 
between strategic ends and operational means has been lacking. 
Consequently, unless the NATO mission departs from its original 
mandate, it appears that our only recourse is to hope that Qadhafi will 
voluntarily leave his country. I cannot support a long-term commitment 
of U.S. forces to hostilities when success is based on hope.
  Furthermore, the President failed to seek congressional authorization 
for this operation on the flimsiest of legal rationale. It's not 
appropriate for this body to cover his lapse with a blanket 
authorization.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in support of this resolution. This is Congress exercising its 
authority as appropriate. And I agree with the people who say that 
Congress should do this, and I just wish we would understand that 
Congress has a certain responsibility in that regard.
  Yes, the President should have asked us, but it's been over 3 months 
and this House has chosen not to act until now. I think it's 
appropriate that we are. I think we should authorize this mission in 
Libya, and I strongly support that mission.
  Now, like most Americans, when this issue first came up, when the 
people in Libya started rising up against their oppressive dictator, I 
was very reluctant about the idea of U.S. military involvement, as I 
think we always should be. I think in the past we have been too over-
anxious to use the U.S. military in places where it was not a good fit. 
We need to think carefully about this. And in every instance we need to 
strike a balance.

                              {time}  1130

  On the one hand, what is the positive impact that our involvement 
could have and, on the other hand, what are the risks of that 
involvement? I think there was a unique set of circumstances in Libya 
that made this make sense.
  First of all, our involvement could have a very positive impact. We 
had international support. The U.N., NATO, the Arab League, everybody 
in the world wanted Qadhafi to be stopped from slaughtering the 
civilians who were rightfully standing up and asking for the basic 
rights that we take for granted in this country. In addition to that, 
our military budget is roughly equivalent to the entire rest of the 
world's combined. That gives us a unique set of capabilities. That 
unique set of capabilities was critical to stopping Qadhafi from 
crushing again the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Libyan 
people. If we had not acted, they would be crushed, many more civilians 
would be dead, and Qadhafi would be back in power. We cannot walk away 
from that responsibility and say that, well, yes, we don't like 
Qadhafi, we wish the people there would do well, but we simply don't 
want to support the action that is necessary to give them that 
opportunity. So in this case, I think the mission did make sense for 
that reason. The United States was in the position to make a difference 
and stand up for people who were asking for legitimate rights.
  But then the broader question is, well, what does that have to do 
with the United States? That may be true, but it's true in a lot of 
countries. The reason this is so important is because of the broader 
movement that is going on, the so-called Arab Spring, people in Muslim 
countries rising up and demanding representative rights. That has an 
incredible impact on us. The greatest threat that we face as a country 
right now is from al Qaeda and their ideology. That ideology arose in 
part because of a whole bunch of repressive governments across the 
Muslim world that weren't providing for their people, a number of 
repressive governments, by the way, which the United States has in the 
past supported. We had an opportunity to do the opposite, to stand up 
for Muslim people. Let me tell you, in the history of this country, I 
don't think we've ever gotten as much positive press on the Muslim TV 
stations and Muslim media as we got for standing up to Qadhafi. This 
has been enormously helpful to us in that broader ideological effort. 
We had national security interests here for standing up.
  Now as a House, I don't want us to stand up and say that we're going 
to

[[Page H4547]]

back down from that commitment that we made. Make no mistake about it, 
if we defeat this resolution and pass the Rooney resolution, we will 
stop the mission in Libya and empower Muammar Qadhafi, something that I 
know nobody wants to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I've heard a number of people say, well, the Constitution does give 
the President latitude, but during the Nixon administration Congress 
passed the War Powers Act, and then when the President vetoed it, 
Congress overrode his veto, and so the War Powers Act became law. Now 
whether or not you believe it's constitutional, it has never been 
tested in the courts, and so it's the law. And the law says, as well as 
the Constitution, at least this is what most of the people who have 
looked at the Constitution believe is what it stands for, the 
Constitution and the War Powers Act say the President cannot do what he 
did without the support and approval of Congress. Now he's gotten us 
into the war in Libya and it is, in effect, our war.
  People say, well, no, it's NATO. Well, we are providing over 8,000 of 
the military personnel on the ships and in the air. The majority of the 
flights that are taking place where they're doing the bombing are done 
by our airmen and our aircraft. Over 90 percent of the missiles that 
are being used at over a million dollars per copy are American 
missiles. This is going to cost billions of dollars. If this were to 
pass and we were to stay there for over a year, you could count on it 
costing $2 billion or $3 billion.
  My colleague from Arkansas just a few minutes ago talked about us 
being broke. The American people know, if Congress doesn't, that we're 
$1.5 trillion short this year, and we're $14 trillion in debt. We're 
printing money that our kids are going to have to deal with because 
they're going to have to pay for the debt down the road. Some of us 
will pay if we live long enough, but our kids are certainly going to 
inherit the debt. And so we're adding to the debt by going into a war 
we shouldn't be in and without the approval of the Congress in 
accordance with the War Powers Act and the Constitution.
  Now my big concern is--and I'm going to talk on the other bill that 
is coming up later on--not just Libya. My big concern is this 
President, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us 
into Syria. There's humanitarian problems in Syria right now, and the 
reason they went into Libya, they said, was because of the humanitarian 
problems. He talked to the French, the English, the NATO, United 
Nations and the Arab League for about 2 weeks before we went into 
Libya, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress who appropriates 
the money and authorizes this stuff. He's the Commander in Chief once 
we go to war, but he needs the authority from Congress to go into it, 
and he didn't do it.
  There are a lot of wars of opportunity. The President could go into 
Syria. He could go into the Ivory Coast.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There are a lot of places we could go to war 
if we choose to do it. There's humanitarian problems around the world. 
But unless it's a threat to the United States or an attack on the 
United States, the President does not have the authority to do what he 
did without the support and approval of Congress.
  President Bush came to Congress before he went into Iraq. President 
Bush came to Congress before he went into Afghanistan, and that's as it 
should be. This President should not overstep his boundaries. And what 
I wish we would do, which would exceed the legislation we're going to 
be talking about today, is to pass legislation to cut off all funds for 
Libya. I know it would not pass the Senate, but it sure would send a 
signal to the President and the White House that we're not going to 
allow him to go into war without the approval of the American people 
and the approval of Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The previous speaker deludes himself, and he is my friend, if he 
thinks the message we send today goes only to the President. The 
message will go to all the world, the message will go to Muammar 
Qadhafi, the message will go to our NATO allies, the message will go to 
every nation of the world that America does not keep faith with its 
allies.
  ``America must lead. We must not equivocate. Such a course would 
encourage the enemies of peace, the bullies of the world. People around 
the world look to our country's strength in their struggle for 
democracy and basic human rights.''
  As it happens, I said that in 1999 when Clinton sent troops to stop 
the genocide in Bosnia, and he did so and the authorization lost on 
this floor, shamefully, 213-213, one of the darkest days I have served 
in this institution. Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not repeat 
that message to our NATO allies, to our European allies, to all the 
world, that America cannot be counted on. At the same time, Congress 
was voting to undermine their mission as they flew to Kosova.
  In recent months, people across the Middle East have bravely stood to 
demand that their government respect their fundamental rights. I have 
stood with the gentleman from Indiana on behalf of human rights around 
the world. The Libyan people, who have been subject to the dictatorship 
of Muammar Qadhafi, who has more Americans' blood on his hands than any 
other person other than Osama bin Laden in the last three decades, were 
among those who insisted that enough was enough. Qadhafi responded by 
unleashing widespread violence and threatening countless lives, 
publicly promising to go ``door to door'' and kill those who stood 
against him.
  In response to this threat of Qadhafi's against those civilian 
people, the European Union, the Arab League, the United Nations 
Security Council, and a unanimous NATO called for action to protect 
Libyan civilians.

                              {time}  1140

  The United States is participating in this action both in order to 
prevent brutal attacks against civilians and in order to stand by our 
allies.
  President Obama has made clear from the beginning that our allies 
needed to take the leading role in Libya. We can't do it all, but that 
does not mean we can't support those who choose and take the 
responsibility of leading. NATO has done that, and to this point the 
campaign against Qadhafi has proven successful. His exports of oil have 
ceased, he is running short on funds, cabinet and military officials 
continue to defect from his regime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. China has just hosted the Libyan opposition in China, and 
the opposition controls eastern Libya and is making progress in the 
west. I believe that the wrong decision today will significantly 
compromise that progress.
  Qadhafi wrote us a letter in the last debate just some weeks ago and 
thanked the House of Representatives for its debate. Is that the 
message we want to send to Qadhafi? I think not. It would put civilian 
lives at risk to withdraw. It would potentially stall the growing 
movements for democratization, not just in Libya but across the Middle 
East and, indeed, across the world. And it would severely undermine our 
NATO alliance, as we all know. If we want our allies to stand by us in 
our time of need in Afghanistan, we have to stand by them in places 
like Libya. We are either in an alliance or we're not.
  I do believe that President Obama could and should have done a better 
job of consulting with Congress at the outset of hostilities, and I do 
believe we are involved in hostilities. But I believe that we must, as 
a faithful ally and defender of freedom, defeat the Rooney resolution 
and support the Hastings resolution. America ought to do no less.

[[Page H4548]]

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. West).
  Mr. WEST. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Very simply, the War Powers Act of 1973 states: ``The President can 
send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by authorization of 
Congress, or in case of a national emergency created by an attack upon 
the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed 
Forces.''
  So as we look at the mission--or the perceived mission that we have 
in Libya--it does not even meet this criteria.
  I stand here today as someone who has been sent forth from these 
shores in the 22 years that I've served in the United States Army. I 
stand here as the son of a man who left these shores to go defend this 
great country in World War II. I stand here as the younger brother of a 
man who left these shores to go defend this country and fight in 
Vietnam. And I stand here today as the uncle of a young man, a captain, 
who has already done two tours of duty in Afghanistan.
  Many of my friends have called me--some call me colonel, some call me 
Allen--and they say, we need you to do one simple thing: understand 
that the oath that you take is to support and defend the Constitution, 
to support and defend the laws of this country. They need us to stand 
up and be the guardians of the laws of this country.
  Just before I came here today, I promoted Jerry Lee Stern to be a 
major, and I read him that oath of office, that he would greatly take 
what we must do now as this body, as legislators of this great Nation, 
uphold the laws and not send our men and women into an undefined and 
unspecified mission. They want the fight; they want to stand up for us. 
Let's do the right thing by them.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the Hastings 
resolution and against the Rooney resolution for one person in 
particular--three words: Jane Ann Morgan, a high school friend of mine 
in Pasadena, California, who was on Pan Am Flight 103. She and 177 
other Americans lost their lives 23 years ago, and we should not forget 
them.
  Qadhafi was Osama bin Laden before there was Osama bin Laden, and we 
cannot stop until he is out of power and the 178 Americans who died and 
the lives of the soldiers who were injured in the Berlin discos are 
remembered. I will support the resolution and vote thinking of Jane Ann 
Morgan today.
  Mr. McKEON. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, the original mission 
was not to get Qadhafi. The original mission, as explained by the 
President, was to help, for humanitarian purposes, those civilians that 
Qadhafi was threatening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman and also associate myself 
with his remarks just now. We were told this is about protecting 
civilians. It has become a cover for regime change. And just because we 
can change a regime with military power doesn't mean we should do it. 
And using military action doesn't mean that you're going to achieve the 
objectives that maybe you haven't even clearly defined.
  Furthermore, if our allies make a mistake, do we follow them? If our 
allies are going out of the war, why should we go in? Right now, you 
have China's foreign minister saying we hope the two parties in the 
conflict can attach importance to the country and the people's interest 
and earnestly consider the international community's relevant 
resolution plans, quickly cease hostilities, and resolve the Libyan 
crisis through political channels.
  Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League, said this 2 days 
ago: Now is the time to do whatever you can to reach a political 
solution that has to start with a genuine cease-fire under 
international supervision.
  The President of South Africa said a few days ago that this is about 
regime change, political assassination, and foreign military 
occupation.
  Vote against this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I have said that I would vote for a resolution granting 
authority to the President if it was appropriately limited and 
conditioned. I would like to see conditions that require the Benghazi 
Transitional Government to remove from their midst the al Qaeda 
fighters and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. I would like to see the 
condition that we use the Qadhafi money that we seized, some $33 
billion, rather than taxpayer money.
  But putting those conditions aside, the one thing we almost all agree 
on is that we would want to limit this to air forces and perhaps a 
ground rescue mission if necessary. That's not what this resolution 
does.
  Section one grants authority to the President to do whatever he 
decides to do, including armor divisions on the ground, in support of 
the NATO mission. Don't be fooled by section 2, which provides the 
President with non-binding, unsolicited advice that we think that he 
should limit our ground operations to rescue missions and diplomatic 
security.
  This is a grant of authority to the President to put armor divisions 
on the ground, if that's what he chooses to do.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the policy in 
here, it says: ``Congress does not support deploying, establishing or 
maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States 
Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.'' The resolution clearly prohibits 
ground forces.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will start out first by associating myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who I think laid this out clearly. 
This is a message that goes globally. This is a destiny message.
  The Speaker of this House understands his role. He understands that 
all of America is watching us today. And even if I had a vote, I would 
have said, no, don't go into Libya. If I had an opportunity to amend 
this resolution, I would say let's limit the authorization to a shorter 
period of time so that the President can come do what he should do. But 
I believe that there are scores of Americans in their graves today 
because this Congress sent the wrong message in several conflicts that 
encouraged our enemy.
  Clausewitz wrote: ``The object of war is to destroy the enemy's will 
and ability to conduct war.'' And I would shorten that up to say, if 
you can destroy their will, it doesn't matter what their ability is; 
you've taken their ability with it.
  But this message encourages our enemy. This resolution says that 
Congress stands with the constitutional authority of the President to 
be Commander in Chief and to conduct our foreign policy. We should 
conduct our disagreement with the President domestically, not in our 
foreign policy and not by limiting an activity that could abrogate our 
NATO treaty.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. McKEON. May I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 68, 
regarding continuing operations in Libya. As a member of the House 
Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I believe it is vitally 
important for Congress to exercise strong oversight of the conduct of 
military operations across the globe. It is for this reason that I have 
supported measures requiring Congress to authorize the use of limited 
military force in Libya to protect civilians and support the ongoing 
NATO mission against Muammar Qaddafi, while prohibiting U.S. ground 
combat forces.
  The President, with the full backing of our allies, the Arab League, 
and the UN, engaged our military forces in Libya to prevent a 
humanitarian disaster that raised the specter of tragic episodes like 
Rwanda and Srebrenica. While I am always reluctant to involve our 
military in any conflict, I support the President's decision to protect 
the people of Libya and uphold U.S. principles of political freedom and

[[Page H4549]]

basic human rights, when we have the ability to do so. I do not, 
however, support any effort to involve U.S. ground combat forces in 
this operation, and this authorization specifically prohibits ground 
combat forces.
  Earlier this month, Congress received a letter from Qaddafi praising 
its criticism of President Obama over the NATO mission. The world 
watches America, and what we say has a dramatic effect on not just our 
own nation, but the safety and security of our allies and peoples 
around the world. That is why I will also vote today against H.R. 2278, 
which is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President and would 
only heighten the appearance of divisions between the United States and 
our allies. Abdicating the mission in Libya in this way emboldens 
Qaddafi, harms our standing in a dangerous region, and will make it 
more difficult in the future to rely on and partner with our allies.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this measure and send a clear 
message of support for our allies and for the principles of democracy 
and human rights that make America great.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, engaging our armed forces is not a vote I 
take lightly. Like many, I was reluctant to enter our nation into 
another conflict. But the situation in Libya is different.
  This is a nation where the people were giving their lives to fight 
for a legitimate voice in their government. For these actions, their 
murderous dictator vowed to hunt them down like ``rats and 
cockroaches.'' Chilling words as Muammar el-Qaddafi is no stranger to 
taking the lives of the innocent. He has more American blood on his 
hands than any terrorist other than Osama bin Laden.
  The international community sought our help in Libya. The Arab League 
supports the NATO mission and this is historic, as it is the first time 
the organization has supported an international intervention in an Arab 
country. The United States' role can make a difference in Libya. To say 
otherwise is to question the very values our own nation was founded 
upon. I believe that our limited mission in Libya is needed and I stand 
with President Obama.
  Let's remember two things. The movement to overthrow longtime Libyan 
dictator Colonel Qaddafi began with the Libyan people. The United 
States should stand with the people of Libya and their fight for 
freedom and human rights.
  We must also remember that under Colonel Qaddafi, Libya was involved 
in aircraft hijackings, extraterritorial assassinations, bombings at 
European airports, and the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub popular 
with American Armed Forces. Libya had a central role in orchestrating 
and financing the in-air bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, 
Scotland in 1988, which killed 270 people, including 190 Americans. 
Libya was also central in the bombing of French UTA flight 772 in 1989, 
which killed 177 people from 18 nations, 7 of whom were American 
citizens.
  The violence of Colonel Qaddafi is known to many nations around the 
world. In the early 1970s, Libya sent military troops and financed 
extremist Palestinian activities in Lebanon. Libya gave safe haven to 
Black September, the Palestinian terrorists that seized Israeli 
athletes as hostages at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Later in the 
decade, Libya sent armed forces into Chad and Uganda. Throughout the 
1970s and well into the 1980s, Colonel Qaddafi either financed or 
materially supported revolutionary efforts in Chad, Corsica, Eritrea, 
Germany, Iran, Italy, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Japan, Lebanon, 
Philippines, Sardinia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, and Tunisia. 
Ending the reign of Colonel Qaddafi and his destabilizing influence is 
in the interest of the world.
  I've heard from many of my constituents concerned that our engagement 
in Libya will become our next Iraq or Afghanistan. I share those 
concerns and have expressed them to the White House and was assured 
that our operations in Libya would be limited.
  I have voted against the use of ground troops in Libya and my vote 
today affirms that position. I do not believe that the United States 
can afford to be involved in further prolonged foreign entanglements 
and nation building. H.J. Res. 68 authorizes the limited support for 
the NATO mission to one year. Would I be more comfortable with a 
shorter timeframe? Yes, but so likely would Colonel Qaddafi. Nothing 
would give him more comfort than a short deadline for him to cling to 
so he can continue to slaughter his own people into submission.
  The situation in Libya is unlike that in Iraq or Afghanistan. The 
mission in Libya has broad international support. I've mentioned the 
Arab League and NATO, but also the United Nations, the Gulf Cooperation 
Council, the Libyan Transitional National Council, and former Libyan 
Ambassador Ali Aujali support our mission. Traditional Libyan allies, 
such as China, Russia, and Turkey, have begun talks with the newly 
formed Libyan Transitional National Council. I strongly support the 
building of international goodwill and cooperation as integral to our 
nation's as well as global security.
  My vote today is for the brave and courageous people of Libya. My 
vote today is for continued rebuilding of our international reputation.
  Mahalo nui loa.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 68. 
This legislation will not end our military involvement in Libya. Both 
simply maintain the status quo and appease Republican Members who want 
to score political points against the President.
  Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans have voted for deep 
cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs. We could 
better achieve deficit reduction by swiftly ending the Libyan war and 
accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  Congress has the power of the purse. Our nation has been at war in 
Libya for 97 days and Congress has never authorized the conflict. We 
need to completely defund operations in Libya and put an end to this 
conflict. It is time for us to come together, use our constitutional 
authority, and apply this critical check on the executive branch. At a 
time when we continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot 
afford to pursue another military adventure that is not in our national 
interest. We must get out of this war now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this toothless bill, and instead 
defund operations in Libya in the upcoming 2012 Defense Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) 
made a point of order against consideration of the joint resolution for 
violating clause 11 of rule XXI asserting that the text of the measure 
had not been available for ``72-hours.''
  Unfortunately, the gentleman misstated the actual wording of the 
rule.
  Clause 11 states in relevant part that ``It shall not be in order to 
consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a 
committee until the third calendar day . . . on which such measure has 
been available.'' The rule clearly counts days, not hours.
  I would refer Members to the ruling of Speaker pro tempore Poe on 
March 17, 2011 where he affirmed that under clause 11 of rule 21, an 
unreported measure may not be considered until the ``third working 
day'' on which it has been available to Members.
  While the Chair was correct in his response that the rule provides a 
waiver of all points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution, I also want to point my colleagues to House Report 111-114 
which accompanied the rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 68 
and H.R. 2278.
  Under the heading ``Explanation of Waivers,'' the Committee states 
that it is not aware of points of order against consideration or the 
provisions contained in either measure and that the waivers are merely 
``prophylactic.'' This means that no waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI or 
any other point of order was necessary. That is because H.J. Res. 68 is 
being considered on the fourth calendar day after it was made available 
and H.R. 2278 is being considered on the third such day, fully in 
compliance with the rules of the House.
  I hope that in the future my colleagues will pay closer attention to 
the wording of the rules in making points of order.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
House Resolution 328, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 295, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 493]

                               AYES--123

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fattah

[[Page H4550]]


     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Levin
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--295

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Berg
     Butterfield
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Higgins
     Mack
     Napolitano
     Ryan (OH)
     Stivers
     Towns
     West

                              {time}  1216

  Mr. MARCHANT, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 
Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. LUETKEMEYER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. CLEAVER and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was in a meeting with a 
constituent and inadvertently missed the vote on H.J. Res. 68, a 
resolution authorizing for one year the limited use of the United 
States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. Because of 
the importance of this matter I would like to request that the Record 
reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 
493 in support of the resolution.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 
493. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H.J. Res. 68, 
authorizing the limited use of United States Armed Forces in support of 
the NATO mission in Libya.

                          ____________________