[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8661-8671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      LIBYA WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I 
call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) directing the 
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to 
remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
concurrent resolution is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 51

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM LIBYA.

       Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 
     U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the 
     United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the 
     date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this 
     concurrent resolution.

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, with 30 minutes controlled by the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), be allowed to control 15 
minutes of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, directing the President to 
remove United States Armed Forces from Libya. The President has failed 
to make the legal and constitutional case that he owes to the Congress 
and to the American people before committing American forces to a 
voluntary conflict. But the situation as it stands today poses an 
important U.S. national security consideration, and it requires this 
body to oppose this Kucinich resolution.
  What are these considerations, Madam Speaker? These are: the sudden

[[Page 8662]]

U.S. withdrawal from Libyan operations proposed by this resolution 
could do irreparable harm to the NATO alliance, and ultimately 
undermine support for NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Also, the longer 
Qadhafi is able to cling to power and continue fighting, the more that 
he will destabilize the larger region. Conflict is already spilling 
over into neighboring countries--Tunisia, for example, which is 
undergoing a fragile transition of its own. Also, there are significant 
proliferation concerns at stake, including the need to secure Libyan 
chemical munitions and prevent the flow of heavy and light weaponry 
from leaking across the porous borders of Libya. Also, extremist 
organizations that pose a credible threat to American interests, 
including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, already are exploiting the 
opportunity to arm themselves and organize.
  So while I share the frustration of my colleagues, I am deeply 
concerned that an abrupt withdrawal of support for the NATO mission 
would have repercussions that extend far beyond the borders of Libya. 
Adoption of this resolution would send a signal to Qadhafi that if he 
can just hang on for 15 days more, the alliance will crumble and he can 
resume his destructive behavior and his destabilizing activities. In 
Egypt, the stability necessary to prevent extremist elements from 
seizing control could be compromised if the conflict in Libya remains 
unresolved.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, providing Qadhafi free rein by forcing 
the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the NATO operation would pose an even 
more virulent threat to such other allies in the region as Israel. An 
emboldened Qadhafi regime would be in a position to provide both 
destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons, as well as 
unconventional capabilities through new and existing smuggling routes 
to violent extremists in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, extremists 
who seek the destruction of Israel.
  A U.S. withdrawal in a manner that is called for in this resolution, 
in fact mandated in this resolution, could have detrimental 
consequences for countries such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, 
who provide critical support to the United States and our NATO allies 
in Afghanistan. And, as operations experts from the Department of 
Defense warned yesterday, an abrupt withdrawal from Libya operations, 
as this resolution demands, would severely undermine support by our 
European allies for NATO efforts in Afghanistan.
  In fact, it would have a detrimental effect on NATO's efforts in 
Afghanistan both in terms of weakening our mission partners and 
emboldening the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated elements. It would 
compromise the safety and security of U.S. forces that at this very 
moment are engaged in the battle against heavily armed enemy forces in 
Afghanistan.
  Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, my daughter-in-law 
Lindsay served in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I also have two committee 
staffers, one in the Army Reserves and one in the Marine Reserves, who 
recently returned from serving a year each in Afghanistan. They have 
emphasized that the potential dangers to our troops there of a NATO 
pullout or a decrease of forces and assets in Afghanistan due to a need 
to refocus them on ongoing operations in Libya is indeed dangerous for 
the United States. They have emphasized that operations in Libya do not 
exist in a vacuum.
  Recall that the House just this last week adopted an amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization bill to prevent U.S. military or private 
security contractors from establishing or maintaining a ground presence 
in Libya. Speaker Boehner has offered a resolution that we discussed 
previously that further underscores that the Congress does not support 
putting U.S. boots on the ground in Libya.
  Now, many have argued that Congress needs to strongly exert its 
prerogatives under War Powers. We must do so, Madam Speaker, but do so 
in a prudent and responsible manner that protects the legitimate 
national security interests of the United States. This resolution, 
Madam Speaker, does not do so. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the prime cosponsor of this 
important constitutional initiative, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  I want to start off by saying this is not a partisan issue. I am very 
happy to cosponsor this legislation because it's the only legislation 
we are discussing today that has teeth in it. It really deals with the 
problem.
  Now, Qadhafi is a bad guy and he ought to be replaced. There are a 
lot of tyrants around the world that ought to be replaced. But should 
the United States go to war any place we want to to get rid of a bad 
guy unless it's in our national interest, or unless we're at risk, or 
unless there's been a declaration of war? No. We could go to war 
anyplace we want to if we just say this guy's a bad guy and he's 
killing his own people. We could do it in Syria, we could do in Ivory 
Coast, we could do it all over the place.
  But the Congress of the United States is the body that's supposed to 
be consulted by the President before we go to war. The President did 
not do this. We are contributing about two-thirds, or at least half of 
the war effort. It's cost over $700 million, and it will be over $1 
billion before it's all over. And the President has taken us into this 
conflict without the authority of the Congress, without the support of 
the Congress.
  He did get the Arab League, he did get the United Nations. He did 
talk to the French and the English. But he didn't talk to the people's 
House, the Congress of the United States. And the President did not 
have the authority do this.
  Now, the reason I support the Kucinich resolution is it sends a clear 
message to the White House they cannot do this again. They cannot 
unilaterally go into Syria or the Ivory Coast or anyplace else without 
talking to the Congress that represents the people all across this 
country. The President should not have done this. And the only 
legislation that really deals with the problem today is the Kucinich 
resolution, which I cosponsored. I am a coauthor of it.
  Now, I am going to vote for the Boehner resolution because it does 
send a signal. But it does not solve the problem. The only way to solve 
the problem is to let the President know he cannot, should not, and 
will not be able to do this again.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just listened to my chairman--I am very fond of her--make a very 
compelling case for the national security interests we have in seeing 
through this operation that is now going on against Qadhafi and Libya.
  In detail, with specifics, I completely support it. The only thing I 
didn't hear was, ``Mr. President, while you didn't consult with us 
enough and you haven't provided us all the information, I want to thank 
you, as our President and our Commander in Chief, for pursuing 
America's national security interests in this current operation. Great 
job, keep it going, be a little better on the information, a little 
more on the consulting, but stick with it.'' That's what I didn't hear.
  I want to compliment Mr. Kucinich for offering this resolution. We 
disagree on the President's policy. My colleague wants to withdraw 
forces, while I support the ongoing operations in Libya. But unlike the 
majority, Mr. Kucinich is taking seriously this body's fundamental 
responsibility to legislate on the use of force.
  The President commenced combat operations in Libya to prevent a 
humanitarian catastrophe, a massacre at the hands of Qadhafi's forces. 
There was bipartisan support for this effort and the President 
prevented massive loss of life through the decisive use of force. We 
don't have to speculate about that. Qadhafi told the entire world about 
his plans for Benghazi, to go

[[Page 8663]]

door to door, closet to closet to find and eliminate his opponents.
  I continue to believe the mission in Libya is relevant and necessary, 
as does my chairman and as does the Speaker, and I believe it's 
achieving success. Qadhafi's forces have been driven out of eastern 
Libya and out of Misrata in the west. High-level defections are on the 
increase. Demonstrations are once again breaking out in Tripoli, 
suggesting a weakening of government control. Progress is slower than 
we would like, but it is steady.
  Efforts to force a withdrawal of forces would reverse this process 
and jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of Libyans now 
benefiting from the NATO operation. And this resolution demands not 
merely withdrawal; it demands withdrawal within 15 days.
  Think about what a removal in 15 days, as required by this 
resolution, would mean. We would be giving Qadhafi a free hand to 
maintain control in Libya and continue his campaign against civilians. 
We would be thumbing our nose at our NATO partners whose support on the 
ground has been and continues to be so crucial in Afghanistan.
  We would likely threaten the stability for the very Arab nations 
where democracy has its best hope of success: Egypt and Tunisia, each 
of which flank Libya and are inevitably affected by its internal 
developments. And we would send a message to Assad of Syria and 
dictators everywhere that our support for freedom and humane governance 
is, at best, lukewarm and transitory: Hang in there for a few weeks, 
Mr. Dictator, and we'll go away.
  And as the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 know better than any 
of us, a Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around 
the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. He might even 
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.
  We need to give the President more time to pursue this mission. To do 
otherwise would be to alienate our allies, to damage our regional 
interests, and, once again, to invite a horrible massacre of Libyan 
civilians.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 
51, although I share my colleagues' concerns regarding our operations 
in Libya. In fact, I sent a letter to the President 2 weeks ago, to 
which I have not received a reply, making it clear that I would have 
serious reservations regarding a request for authorization of military 
force in Libya.
  Moreover, I support House Resolution 292, which we have also debated 
here today. I do not believe the President has adequately sought 
congressional authorization, nor has he provided sufficient information 
for Congress to perform its constitutional oversight.
  Nevertheless, I cannot support the resolution before us. This 
resolution would require the President to remove all U.S. forces within 
15 days. Such a short lead time offers our allies no time to prepare 
for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and, make no mistake, the hasty 
withdrawal of U.S. forces would cripple allied operations and embolden 
Qadhafi. The United States provides adequate capabilities that our NATO 
allies and other partners cannot provide, either in kind or at all 
levels required.
  We provide over 75 percent of all aerial refueling; 70 percent of all 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; nearly a quarter of all 
the aircraft, including fighter aircraft, for suppression of enemy air 
defenses; armed Predators, providing aerial surveillance and strike 
capability, including low-level targeted strikes in urban centers where 
Qadhafi's forces have entrenched themselves; and electronic warfare 
aircraft for jamming and support in targeting.
  Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which involvement 
in Libya was in our national strategic interest, but having committed 
our forces, a precipitous withdrawal would certainly have implications 
for U.S. national security and our strategic interests around the 
world. We should make certain allied efforts are not undermined at the 
last minute.
  As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I will continue to 
ensure that the committee conducts robust oversight of ongoing military 
operations, and I will continue to press the President for answers, but 
this resolution is not the appropriate means to bring about an end to 
the stalemate in Libya.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank Mr. Kucinich, and I support his efforts over 
the years, but especially today, in allowing this very sensitive 
constitutional question to be debated.
  I asked him and almost pleaded that he allow me to follow my friend 
Dan Burton, because nothing could better prove to our colleagues and 
those that know both of us how nonpartisan this issue is and should be.
  This is not a question, really, of past Presidents who always thought 
they were doing the best for the United States of America when they put 
our men and women in harm's way. Not one of them ever thought that they 
were doing anything immoral.
  This is not a Democratic problem; it's not a Republican problem; it's 
not a problem of the President of the United States, not Nixon, not 
Kennedy, not Johnson, certainly not President Obama, certainly not the 
Bushes. It's a problem of the House of Representatives and the United 
States Senate. This is a congressional problem. We have not fulfilled 
our responsibility.
  Some people I have heard say, well, this hasn't reached a level that 
it should be war. Well, ask the men and women that make the sacrifices 
and come home and leave their fallen friends there whether this was a 
war. Ask those mothers and fathers and children who have lost their 
loved ones whether this is war.
  It's easy for us to say that we are not going to get involved; let 
the President have the authority. But in the final analysis, when we go 
to the funerals, these brave men and women may not come from your 
districts because they don't have to make the sacrifices somehow in 
these United States. We know who has to volunteer, who makes the 
sacrifices, and we sit back and wash our hands and say we didn't think 
that this reached a level that we had to give approval to the President 
of the United States. I am not saying that the President is right or 
wrong. I am saying we are.
  And, Mr. Kucinich, I thank you for the opportunity, because no longer 
should there be a debate as to whether or not it's Libya, whether it's 
Korea or wherever it is. We have a constitutional authority. Thank you 
for giving us an opportunity to talk about this as Members of the 
United States Congress.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I agree with the gentleman from New York, and 
our political philosophies may be different. I think it's a powerful 
and passionate speech. What frustrates me, I think, the most, and the 
fact that we are even having this debate in this way is because the 
President has not led on this particular issue. He should have come 
before Congress. I think that's clear.
  I don't think anyone really objects to the fact that he should have 
come here anytime when we put our troops in harm's way, absolutely. I 
think he's done not a great job talking about what our national 
security interests are in Libya and what role we're playing in Libya. 
Bad marks all the way around.

[[Page 8664]]

  But the Kucinich resolution is dangerous. I do believe we have 
national security interests at stake here. Even though the President 
has gone about it in all the wrong way, they're our national security 
interests. And to stand up today and say we're frustrated with the 
President, we're going to stomp our feet and we're going to bring them 
home, leaving our allies holding the bag, is unconscionable--
unconscionable.
  Here's what happens if the Kucinich resolution passes: the naval 
blockade becomes at risk, Qadhafi gets stronger, our ability to refuel 
aircraft--NATO aircraft who are doing strikes, not the United States 
who are doing strikes mind you, our British, our Italian and our French 
allies who are doing combat strikes--goes away.
  The fact that we cannot get in and do particular efforts on making it 
very difficult for them to see through radar and actually target planes 
happens by the United States, that goes away. Who would do that to 
friends and allies in the middle of a fight?
  And here's our national security interests. They have thousands and 
thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. This isn't a guess. We're not 
reading some analytical sheet. Many of you have seen it. I have 
personally seen it. We know it's there. It's declared. What happens to 
those chemical weapons in a place where al Qaeda in the Magreb is 
growing stronger, not weaker? There's only one country in the world 
that has the unique capability to keep an eye on it and take care of it 
when the opportunity arises. That's the United States of America. That 
is in our national interest. There are thousands and thousands and 
thousands of shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft weapons that keep me awake 
at night.
  We have the unique capability in the United States to make sure that 
those weapons systems don't fall into the hands of those who would do 
us harm--the terrorists who proliferate in northern Africa right now. 
Those are in our national security interests.
  So, yes, let's have the debate. I think the Speaker's approach is 
absolutely appropriate. It's sad that we had to come to that point 
where we had to inform this administration, ``Sir, you have not made 
your case. You need to come and make your case.'' And I argue when he 
does that, when he makes his case, I think the American people will be 
with him. But he has to make the case, and he needs Congress' consult 
and advice on this particular issue. And I argue he needs our approval 
to continue to move forward.
  I hope that we don't get really small in our politics and we're so 
angry at this President for not making his case on something as 
sensitive as this that we would ruin our national interests as we move 
forward. They are important allies, our French and our British. Now 
we've been frustrated at them, and I'm sure they're frustrated at us. 
But they've spilled their blood and their treasure in places like Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and they currently help us fight terrorism where we 
find it in the world.
  Do you poke your friend in the eye because you're mad? No. This is an 
important issue that has to be bigger than our political parochial 
beliefs. It has to be bigger than our congressional districts. This is 
about America, our future, our allies, and, yes, our national security.
  Who better to make sure that those shoulder-fired weapons don't go 
someplace than us? Who better to make sure that those chemical weapons 
don't fall in the hands of terrorists who seek to kill innocent men, 
women and children? Qadhafi has been proven to be a state sponsor of 
terror. The Pan Am bombing, he killed hundreds. He killed U.S. soldiers 
in Germany in the eighties, our U.S. soldiers, through an act of 
terrorism. We know he still has terrorism hit squads. We know it. We 
can't prove that he's engaged them yet, but we know they exist. Why 
would we walk away from that threat when we know he's under siege and 
feeling desperate?
  This is the time we should stand with our allies, Madam Speaker. This 
is the time that we should say, yes, our national security interests 
are at heart. And, yes, Mr. President, come down and meet your 
constitutional obligation and show this Congress why we're there, what 
role we're playing and what it means to our national security.
  I would urge a strong rejection of cutting and running in the 
Kucinich amendment and a strong support of the Speaker of the House's 
right approach to bring the President to Congress, as he needs to be.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock), who has been very closely involved in 
helping construct bipartisan support for H. Con. Res. 51, and I thank 
him.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this resolution. We need to be crystal 
clear on this. Without prior congressional authorization, under the War 
Powers Act, the President may only commit Armed Forces to hostilities 
for 60 days if there is a direct attack upon the United States, its 
territories or possessions or its Armed Forces.
  There was none, so there is no 60-day clock, and the unprovoked 
attack on Libya--from day one--constituted an illegal and 
unconstitutional act of the highest significance.
  And the question is, What are we going to do about that? If the 
President felt there was moral justification to attack Libya, he was 
constitutionally required to make that case to the Congress and to get 
its authorization. He did not.
  Now, the argument we hear against this resolution comes down to this: 
we're already committed; it's too late for Congress to order a 
withdrawal without harming America's reputation or undermining its 
allies. Well, if we take that position, we have just changed the entire 
Constitution to read as follows: the President may attack any country 
he wants for any reason that he wants and the Congress has no choice 
but to follow. That's what they're saying.
  The President has crossed a bright constitutional line, and this 
Congress has a clear moral and constitutional duty to intervene, and 
only the Kucinich resolution actually does so, short of sending a 
strong letter to the President.
  If we fail to do so, we will have destroyed the work of the American 
Founders by fundamentally changing the legislative and executive 
functions on the most momentous decision that our Nation can make, and 
we will take our country down dark and bloody roads that the American 
Founders sought to avoid.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank my friend for yielding and for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Madam Speaker, it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're 
committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in Libya in 
support of democracy and the rule of law, that we are also trampling on 
the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain 
language of our United States Constitution, which is the supreme rule 
of law here at home.
  The United States Constitution clearly states that the President's 
power as Commander in Chief--to introduce our Armed Forces into 
hostilities--may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances: 
number one, a declaration of war; number two, a specific statutory 
authorization; and, number three, a national emergency created by an 
attack upon the United States. That has not happened.
  So despite my great respect and affection for our President, a lawful 
premise for this Libyan operation does not exist.
  In closing, I'd just like to say that I've been to Iraq 13 times and 
Afghanistan 10 times. I don't meet any of our kids on their first tour 
of duty anymore. They're all on their third tour of duty or fourth tour 
of duty.
  We are stretched thin, and this was a gratuitous action. We should 
not be there. There's no lawful basis for the prosecution of this war. 
So I ask for the support of this resolution.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Johnson).

[[Page 8665]]


  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich, and thank you 
Members of the House.
  This issue of war and peace and separation of powers transcends 
partisan politics. A few years ago, together with my good friend, Steve 
Israel, I began what's known as the Center Aisle Caucus, which has a 
large membership now. Our goal is bipartisan solutions to America's 
challenges, and this bill reflects that approach.
  H. Con. Res. 51, on paper, addresses our illegal war in Libya; but, 
in spirit, it calls into question American presence in the Middle East, 
and it should command the attention of the national media, if you're 
listening, and every American citizen.
  Today I issue a challenge to an often divided Congress. To my 
Democratic colleagues, I ask you to candidly acknowledge that war is 
war, even when a Democratic President initiates, or perpetuates, that 
war. To my Republican colleagues, I ask you to acknowledge that a 
sincere and effective attack on our crippling national debt, without 
defense spending squarely on the table, is indefensible and 
disingenuous.
  To all of my colleagues, I ask you to acknowledge certain realities: 
one, our global warfare kills American men and women and innocent 
people all around the world every day.

                              {time}  1230

  Two, we cannot impose our standards of democracy, humanitarianism, 
and culture--as much as we want to--on nations that don't care and 
resent our self-proclaimed role as judge and jury.
  Three, there is little, if any, connection between our actions in 
Libya and the safety of citizens in St. Louis, Missouri, or Mount Zion, 
Illinois. We spend almost $700 billion a year on defense, a significant 
portion of that for three wars.
  Three days ago, we voted on the issue of whether to increase our 
national debt limit to nearly $17 trillion. From President Bush to 
President Obama, and well before, Presidents have flagrantly and 
arrogantly violated article I, section 8 of the Constitution, not to 
mention the War Powers Act.
  The Speaker's resolution that we will vote on here in a few moments 
was strongly worded--and I believe sincerely offered--but it was just 
that: words. It is not and should not be a cover for any Member of this 
Chamber to fail to support the Kucinich bill, which puts teeth, real 
teeth, into congressional prerogatives.
  Support the Constitution, support fiscal responsibility, and support 
peace. Support the Kucinich resolution.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia earlier said that the 
Kucinich resolution would tie the President's hands. Yes, it would. The 
whole point of the Constitution is to tie the President's hands. The 
President, not this particular President, any President, must not have 
the power to commit this country to war on his own authority without 
the concurrence of Congress. That is the point of the Constitution.
  George Washington said the Constitution vests the power of declaring 
war in Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition can be undertaken 
until they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such 
a measure.
  Abraham Lincoln said they--meaning the Framers--resolved to so frame 
the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this 
oppression--meaning war--upon us. And that's what this really does.
  Now, over the last 60 years since World War II, during the Cold War, 
power has flowed to the President--again, Presidents in general. The 
exigencies of time when bombers were over the Pole, or we thought 
bombers were over the Pole, you couldn't call Congress into session. 
And Congress, in effect, surrendered much power to the Presidency.
  Korea was an undeclared war and should not have happened that way.
  Vietnam, Congress was fooled. They called the Gulf of Tonkin 
Resolution the ``functional equivalent of a declaration of war'' which 
Congress would not have voted had they known what was in store or what 
they were voting on, or that it was going to be cited as a declaration 
of war.
  The issue before us is not consultation with Congress; it is not a 
lack of information to Congress. It's the fact that Congress must act, 
and that is why the Boehner resolution is beside the point.
  Now, in the past, there was a good reason. There was time, there were 
emergencies. But here, Secretary Gates said there was no threat to the 
national security of the United States. We had time to negotiate with 
the Arab League, we had time to go to the U.N., and there was time to 
go to Congress and ask for an authorization of military war.
  The President gave us his reasons for going into Libya. Not everyone 
agrees with those. But the question is not the wisdom of the war in 
Libya; it is enforcing the Constitution. And if we pass the Kucinich 
resolution, the President would have 15 days to come before us and ask 
us to authorize the use of force, if that is necessary.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the United States is engaged in a 
war in the name of humanity. The President's actions did not follow the 
Constitution. They do not follow the War Powers Resolution. It is an 
unconstitutional action on the part of the United States.
  I served on the bench in Texas for over 20 years trying criminal 
cases. In our daily business, we followed the law. And the law required 
that you have a trial. If convicted, the person was sentenced. I never 
tried a case that a person was so bad we just skipped the trial and we 
went ahead and sentenced them and then had the trial later to prove it 
was a good idea. We followed the law. And the same law that required a 
procedure in a trial that is in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution 
also says there is a procedure for going to war. And the procedure is 
that Congress, not the President, instigates war.
  James Madison, a person who wrote the Constitution, said the 
Constitution supposes what the history of all government demonstrates: 
that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and 
most prone to it. Therefore, with studied care, we have vested the 
question of war with the legislature. That would be us. Congress. We 
have not fulfilled our obligation.
  The war in Libya violates the Constitution, the War Powers Act. It is 
not in the national security of the United States. It is said, Well, 
the French, we may disrespect the French. Well, I say to the French: 
You respect our Constitution, and our Constitution says that the 
declaration and going to war is the responsibility of Congress, not any 
executive.
  It has been said that the Constitution may be inconvenient, but it is 
meant to be, Madam Speaker. War is a serious matter, and Presidents and 
Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the first airstrikes against Libya were 
launched in March. Now it is June. Seventy-six days after this mission 
began, Congress still hasn't been given an opportunity to vote for or 
against a declaration of war.
  Every Member of this body, regardless of individual feelings, should 
demand--demand--that their constitutional authority be respected. The 
engagement in Libya is lingering without accountability or checks on 
Presidential power, without a vigorous debate about the consequences of 
our actions. What is the endgame? What is the timetable? What are the 
metrics or benchmarks of success?
  With the United States already fighting in two theaters, with the 
human and financial costs of Iraq and Afghanistan mounting every day--
$10 billion a month alone in Afghanistan, our military is stretched to 
its breaking point. We simply cannot take on a third war.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page 8666]]


  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Last week, by an overwhelming majority of 416-5, this 
body voted to say ``no'' to boots on the ground in Libya. Today, we 
must go one step further. We must support H. Con. Res. 51 and end the 
war in Libya altogether.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
introducing this resolution.
  It is just so ironic that on May 26, a CNN poll found that the 
majority of the American people, 55 percent, believe Congress, not the 
President, should have final authority for deciding whether the United 
States should continue its military mission in Libya.
  Yes, American people, you are exactly right, and that is why we need 
to support Mr. Kucinich's resolution.
  It has been amazing to me that I have heard so much debate today 
about NATO's feelings--NATO's feelings. Well, how about the feelings of 
the American people? How about the people that pay the taxes in this 
country, how about their feelings? Isn't it time their feelings come 
first?
  That is why I sincerely believe, and I wanted to be on the floor 
today because--and I thank Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of the House, for 
presenting a resolution, but that does not do it. That does not do it.
  The Constitution says that Mr. Kucinich is right with this 
resolution. The American people say that he is right with this 
resolution. The American people are calling on the Congress to meet 
their constitutional duties and to vote for this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to say again to Mr. Kucinich, 
thank you for taking the lead on this. This should actually be the only 
resolution we are voting on, but let's show the American people that we 
believe in the Constitution and let's support Mr. Kucinich's 
resolution.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I inquire of the amount of time remaining 
for all of the managers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, this resolution is not as much about Libya 
as it is about us. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could control events 
around the world, determine the way that people see us and always 
accurately predict the consequences of our actions? But that's not what 
life is all about. The best we can do is establish the values and the 
principles that define us individually as citizens and collectively as 
a Nation.
  This resolution is not about whether we should be involved. We are 
always going to be involved in what is taking place around the world, 
because we are the world's economic, military and moral superpower. To 
choose not to act, particularly at a time of such crisis and 
transformation that is occurring throughout the Arab world, is, in 
fact, to choose. In this case, it would be to choose to define us as a 
people who has decided to look the other way, to choose not to hear the 
cries of desperate help from the Libyan people who have chosen to put 
their lives on the line in the cause of democracy, of individual 
liberty and of freedom from oppression.
  These are the values that define us as a people and as a Nation. They 
are the values, frankly, that give hope to a world of repression and 
despotism that will, in fact, continue to exist and, in fact, will gain 
strength if we do not stand up, speak out and ``have their back'' at 
such a time as this.
  That's why we should defeat the Kucinich resolution, because it is 
really about who we are as a people and whether we still have the 
courage and the constancy to defend the moral high ground. As long as 
the rest of the world has to look up, not down and not sideways as this 
resolution would place us, we will, in fact, be advancing our own 
security and prosperity and the integrity of our moral force as a 
Nation of principled people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN. We must always bear in mind that we live in a world that 
wants more than anything to shine as brightly as the beacon of freedom 
and hope that we represent. We should always bear in mind that we have 
the privilege of representing and burnishing ever brighter that beacon 
in a time of crisis when there is clear cost and consequence to our 
actions. This is when we show the courage and the constancy that must 
define us. Once again, we are called upon to be equal to our history to 
the legacy of those who have gone before us.
  This may not seem like a terribly critical vote in the scheme of 
things; but to all of the Libyans who have chosen to put their lives on 
the line for the values that define us as Americans, it is a big deal. 
It is everything. It is their lives. It is their hope. It is their 
future. That's why this resolution should be defeated. Because this is 
about us and a world that looks to us for its moral leadership.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. This is a defining moment for us as a people. This is a 
defining moment for this body. This is a defining moment for the United 
States Constitution.
  With the civil war in North Africa, there is no clear and present 
danger to the United States of America. Therefore, in acts of war, the 
President has a constitutional duty and obligation to come to the 
Congress to seek approval. For the President to suggest that he got 
approval from the United Nations is offensive, and it's wrong.
  No, Mr. President. Authorization to go to war comes from the American 
people, and it comes from the United States Congress. We must stand 
tall and true to the Constitution. We have no choice but to vote on 
this action. This is a defining moment.
  What is absent in all this discussion, I'd point out to my 
colleagues, is I see no resolution to go to war. I don't see a 
resolution that says this is what we should be doing.
  Please vote in favor of this amendment. Stand true and tall for the 
Constitution. This is a defining moment.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support for H. Con. Res. 51. We need to pass this 
resolution to send a very strong message.
  We have been told by those who oppose this message that we should not 
have an abrupt withdrawal from the region, but I would strongly suggest 
that what we should be talking about is the abrupt and illegal entry 
into war. That's what we have to stop. Since we went in abruptly and 
illegally, we need to abruptly leave.
  It has also been said by those who oppose this resolution that they 
concede that Congress should assume its prerogatives over the war 
powers but to do it gradually. I would strongly suggest that when we 
took our oath of office we assumed that radically and suddenly. We took 
an oath of office to obey the Constitution, not to defer to the United 
Nations, and that we already have assumed that responsibility.
  I would also suggest, if we do nothing, if we do not pass this 
resolution, it is the sin of omission that we commit.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of the Kucinich resolution. I had hoped to be 
able to support the Boehner resolution. I share the Speaker's concern 
that a precipitous withdrawal called for by the

[[Page 8667]]

Kucinich resolution sends a less than optimal signal to our NATO 
allies.
  Yet, while we are on the subject of signals, I am far more concerned 
about the puzzling, confusing, mystifying signal that we send by 
passing a resolution that affirms that the President has not fulfilled 
his constitutional or statutory obligations, yet offers no remedy, only 
a mild rebuke, followed by a questionnaire.
  Madam Speaker, I was here in 2001 when we authorized the use of force 
to enter Afghanistan. There was just one dissenting vote. When a 
genuine threat to our national security is perceived, it has been the 
longstanding practice of Congress to support the administration in its 
actions. The greater threat today, in my view, is the perpetual 
acquiescence of this body, in situations such as we face today in 
Libya, where we tolerate the use of military force when the threat to 
our national security is less obvious.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I think the President 
erred in not following the War Powers Act in the spirit of the 
Constitution. He should have asked us. If he had, I would have said 
``no'' then, and I say ``no'' now.
  Let me disagree with those of my colleagues who have talked about 
what a terrible man Qadhafi is as a reason for the United States to be 
spending our money there. Yes, he's a thug who ought to be removed, but 
it cannot be that America has to be the 911 for the world and that we 
are the ones who have to respond everywhere every time.
  I heard one of my colleagues on the other side say, Well, the 
Europeans are there. Let's not poke them in the eye. Poke them in the 
eye? We have for years, since the beginning of NATO, been subsidizing 
them so that they have military budgets less than half of ours as a 
percentage of their GDP, so that they can do better than us in health 
care and better in competitiveness and every other way.

                              {time}  1250

  Yes, he should be opposed. There are European nations, developed, 
wealthy nations just across the Mediterranean. Why do they have to have 
America come nearly 4,000 miles to do it?
  And it's not just Libya. This is defining. Are we going to go forward 
with a situation in which America undertakes to defend everybody in the 
world everywhere, even when they are not greatly threatened, as is the 
case with NATO or with missile defenses against nonexistent missile 
threats from Iran, or do we say that we will bear our fair share but 
not more? We have got to stop subsidizing the rest of the world, 
particularly now.
  And when members from the Appropriations Committee come up and tell 
us, You've got to go do this, but let's cut police in Massachusetts, 
let's cut housing in Ohio, let's cut transportation in California, we 
cannot reduce our deficit in a way that allows us to maintain any 
concern for the quality of life here if we continue to spend money 
promiscuously all over the world.
  By the way, let's go beyond that. We're not just talking about Libya. 
What about the paradox of Afghanistan, where we will spend $100 billion 
a year to be told by the President of Afghanistan that he doesn't like 
what we're doing. Fine, let him have it. Stop forcing him to take our 
$100 billion a year.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me a 
minute this morning.
  Today I think we owe the American people an apology because we all as 
a House are here to defend and protect the Constitution of the United 
States and it has been way too long before this debate has been had on 
this floor.
  There is much more at risk today than Libya. What is at risk today is 
the very Constitution that we have sworn to protect and to uphold. If 
the Constitution is at risk, then this House is at risk.
  When this House is blatantly ignored by another branch, by the 
President of the United States, then the people are blatantly ignored 
by the President of the United States and this House will fall.
  I applaud those that have sponsored this resolution, and I rise in 
support of it today.
  Mr. BERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark).
  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 51, a bipartisan resolution 
directing the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from 
Libya within 15 days. I'm proud to support this resolution by 
Representatives Kucinich, Burton, and Capuano. It gives Congress, and 
therefore the American people, the power to decide whether America 
enters into or continues a war which destroys our economy, which 
destroys unnecessarily human lives who do not oppose us and are not a 
threat.
  For us to be wantonly killing people around the globe, entering into 
a war--there's no other question about that--without permission from 
the American people through this body is unconstitutional, it's wrong, 
and we should support the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California, our ranking 
member on Foreign Affairs, for the time.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very tough call, a tough set of 
circumstances. There is much complexity here with the convergence of 
war and diplomacy and geopolitics and allied relations.
  What is clear, however, is that the President has not communicated 
effectively with the United States Congress, nor has he sought this 
body's authorization for the undertaking in Libya.
  Let's have a brief history lesson here, though: Some in this body 
called for unilateral action against Libya just 3 months ago. That was 
appropriately resisted by this administration until other nations, 
particularly the British and the French, were willing to put up their 
own assets and give structure to a NATO coalition.
  However, now U.S. actions, in an important allied effort to save 
Libyan civilians from imminent slaughter, have clearly moved beyond the 
scope of humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts.
  With that said, an abrupt and imminent cut-off of U.S. participation 
in Libya causes numerous complications and would be highly disruptive. 
Yet we should not creep, we must not creep toward opening up a third 
front in Libya, which is the root cause of this debate.
  The general framework for intervention without express congressional 
authorization has precedent and some parallels within the last 30 
years. Let's look at Lebanon in 1982, Panama in 1989, Bosnia in 1995, 
and Kosova in 1999. All of these interventions had various levels of 
controversy, particularly the one in Lebanon; but they were undertaken 
by Presidents of the United States.
  The Boehner resolution, considered before this one, gives the 
President a small window of time to better make his case. If the 
President cannot, Congress can assert its authority and disapprove.
  Raising principled questions about war powers is a laudable goal, and 
I do want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his 
leadership in this important debate. It would not have happened without 
him.
  However, I think we should move forward very carefully. Speaker 
Boehner's resolution pushes the President for answers but stops short 
of requesting congressional authorization or abrupt withdrawal of U.S. 
participation in the Libya mission. If this approach is unfruitful, we 
can then exercise further options.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has been a driving force behind 
this resolution.

[[Page 8668]]


  Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of 
this resolution. But I want to be honest, I take no pleasure in this. 
I'm an early and ardent supporter of the President on most everything. 
This has nothing to do, in my mind, with the President or, truthfully, 
even with the action in Libya. For me, this is about the Constitution, 
plain and simple.
  The Constitution is clear. It's not even about the War Powers Act. I 
personally think the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional. The 
Constitution is clear. On many things it's not. It is unequivocally 
clear that the declaration of war is the responsibility of Congress, 
period. No gray area there.
  Now, I know you can try to fudge on what the definition of war is, 
but when someone is shooting at someone else, that's war. If it's one 
person, 10 people, or 10 million, that's war. For me, that's what this 
is about.
  Now, don't get me wrong. I would hesitate strongly--I doubt that I 
would support the action in Libya. But that's not why I cosponsored 
this.
  And I've had some people say, well, 15 days is unreasonable. Well, 
okay. Then if this passes, they have 15 days to come back to us and ask 
us for more time, which I would be inclined to do if that's necessary 
on a military basis.

                              {time}  1300

  What this simply says is that Congress has to stand up on our own two 
feet and take the actions that we took an oath to take, which is to 
uphold the Constitution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Now, I understand that people may see things differently 
and I respect people that would differ, but I cannot believe that 
anyone can honestly read the Constitution on this matter in an unclear 
way.
  Congress has the authority to declare war, period. That's why I'm 
here today. I'm not here to debate today whether we are right or wrong 
to be in Libya. That will come another day--maybe or maybe not. But I 
am here to say, uncomfortable as it is, unpleasant as it is, as 
difficult as it is, it is our responsibility to take action when it 
comes to declaring war. Every Member of Congress should be voting for 
this resolution because of that simple fact, and we can have other 
debates on another day.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, the author of this resolution is known 
for his opposition to the use of American military force, and those who 
agree with him on foreign policy may well vote for this resolution. In 
contrast, I have voted for every authorization to use military force 
that has come before this Congress in the last 15 years, and I would 
support the authorization to use force in Libya if it had the proper 
conditions and limits.
  This resolution would not actually result in the immediate 
withdrawal; instead, it would force the President to come to this 
Congress and seek authorization pursuant to law--and would get that 
authorization, I believe, with the appropriate limits and conditions. 
That would be an improvement to our foreign policy. More importantly, 
it would mean we're following the Constitution. The War Powers Act is 
the law of the land and it requires congressional authorization for 
military actions that take more than 60 days.
  We long for democracy and the rule of law in Libya, but not at the 
expense of democracy and the rule of law in the United States. If we 
don't require compliance with the War Powers Act, who will? And if the 
War Powers Act becomes a dead letter, who will constrain some future 
President with imperial ambitions?
  If your constituents insist that you stand up for the rule of law, 
don't go back to them next week saying you voted for the Boehner 
resolution. That Boehner resolution does not mention--let alone 
enforce--the War Powers Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SHERMAN. The Boehner resolution just grudgingly acquiesces to an 
imperial vision of the Presidency. The Kucinich resolution enforces the 
War Powers Act and starts us on the War Powers Act process.
  We owe it to our fighting men and women that when they risk their 
lives, they do so pursuant to our laws and our Constitution. And when 
they risk their lives for an extended period of time, they do so not 
because of the decision of one individual but, rather, because of the 
decision of the representatives of all of the American people.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. The debate in the House today concerning the extent of 
U.S. involvement in the military action in Libya, now led by NATO, is a 
necessary and important debate, and I appreciate the role that Dennis 
Kucinich has played in this.
  Both resolutions being considered today recognize the essential role 
of Congress in authorizing and in funding the use of U.S. Armed Forces 
consistent with the War Powers act and the Constitution. Both 
resolutions require the Members of the House to reflect on the 
appropriateness of the use of military force in this operation, as 
outlined by the President. And both resolutions initiate the entirely 
appropriate debate over the objectives of this operation as well as its 
duration.
  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 U.S. effort 
was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, some of 
our closest friends, 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 al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising--
inspired by the Arab Spring movement--was to use force against 
civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the 
international outcry and the U.N. action.
  At the time, the President stated clearly that our leadership of the 
NATO effort would last a matter of days, not weeks. While the direct 
U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain 
engaged in the NATO operation; and at this point, it is clear that 
Members of Congress are not comfortable with the extent of information 
they have been given about the direction, the duration, or the cost of 
the operation. Under the War Powers act, the President has an 
obligation to report to Congress and to seek concurrence if our 
military involvement extends longer than 60 days, and clearly such 
consultation has not been effectively accomplished.
  We are encouraged by statements from the Obama administration that 
U.S. ground forces will not be used in Libya. And last week, 416 
Members of Congress supported the Conyers amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill that would prohibit funds in the bill from being 
used to deploy ground forces in the country.
  At issue now is whether Congress should act through the Kucinich 
resolution to effectively terminate the U.S. involvement in the NATO 
effort within 2 weeks or whether Congress, through the Boehner 
resolution, should scold the President for not providing greater detail 
about specific actions, contributions of other nations to the effort, 
and the possible involvement of Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al 
Qaeda, and other organizations in and outside the region in providing 
support to the Libyan Government.
  I believe the Kucinich resolution is premature and that it could 
materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from which we will 
undoubtedly require support in the future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

[[Page 8669]]


  Mr. DICKS. I believe the Boehner resolution is an attack on the 
President, something most of the Republican Caucus would vote against 
if its party was in control of the executive branch.
  I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the 
cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in 
the Defense and Foreign Affairs-related committees here as well as in 
the full House. I am neither prepared to end our involvement 
unilaterally, as in the Kucinich amendment, nor do I believe Congress 
should officially declare our involvement in this effort that has not 
been properly explained by the President.
  I think the President made a very strong statement to the American 
people about why we were going to use this for humanitarian reasons. I 
think the Qadhafi regime is a brutal regime that should be replaced, 
and I hope that we can accomplish that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains for all?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California has 45 seconds remaining; and 
the gentlewoman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Members will be asked to vote on two resolutions, H. Con. Res 51, and 
a resolution offered by Speaker Boehner, H. Res. 292, both of which 
address U.S. military involvement in Libya.
  I do not believe that H. Res. 292 is at odds with H. Con. Res. 51, 
but it's not a substitute for the resolution that Mr. Burton and others 
have worked on. It's imperative that Members clearly understand this, 
because the consequence of voting for one--that's the Speaker of the 
House resolution--and not the other, H. Con. Res 51, ends up being an 
endorsement of unconstitutional action that was taken by the White 
House.
  So how does Congress deal with the failure of any President to adhere 
to the Constitution? If Congress does not challenge a President's 
dismissal of the clear meaning of article I, section 8, then we will 
have tacitly endorsed a President's violation of the Constitution and 
guaranteed the perpetuation of future constitutional transgressions. A 
mild rebuke alone of the usurpation of a constitutionally mandated war 
power is insufficient to defend the Constitution.
  Many of us want to support our President, but the President has 
ignored Congress' assertion of the war powers by failing to obey the 
War Powers Resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, just in closing our time in the debate, I 
would take up Mr. Kucinich's comments.
  If you think there has been an inappropriate abuse of power here, 
voting for the Boehner resolution does not cure that. But the 
Constitution doesn't say the President must come to Congress and get a 
declaration of war. It says Congress must declare war.
  I agree very much with the thinking of my friend, the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers, that there are national security 
issues involved here as well as humanitarian issues, and that's why I 
oppose Kucinich. But the notion that the President has to come to 
Congress when Congress has the authority to address this issue directly 
through a declaration or through an authorization or a limited 
authorization is the right way to do it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on both the Boehner amendment and the Kucinich 
amendment.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 1 minute.
  There are those who may hesitate to support my resolution because of 
the supposed negative impact it will have on the NATO mission and on 
our image in the eyes of our NATO allies.
  In the weeks leading up to the war, the administration had time to 
consult with the Arab League, the United Nations, and the African 
Union, but apparently had no time to come to this Congress for 
approval. If our image in the eyes of NATO is a reason to stay in 
Libya, the administration should not have committed the U.S. to a war 
of choice without consulting with Congress for an action that was so 
far outside that which is allowed by the War Powers Resolution.
  Far more damaging is a Congress that ends up being more concerned 
with our image in the eyes of NATO than our fulfillment of our 
constitutional responsibilities and the continued usurpation of the war 
power by the executive. Our loyalty to NATO and to our President, 
regardless of party affiliation, does not trump our loyalty to the 
United States Constitution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. May I ask the gentlelady, will she be closing?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, we will use the time to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank all Members on both sides of the aisle 
who have participated in this important constitutional debate.
  What does it mean to defend the Constitution? Well, if you know that 
Congress very clearly has the power to declare war, if you believe the 
President violated the Constitution in this regard, then you cannot 
come to any conclusion other than to say that we stand up and defend 
the Constitution by voting for H. Con. Res. 51.
  Let us also defend the Founding Fathers and the doctrine of 
separation of powers. Let us defend the doctrine of checks and 
balances. Let us defend the institution of the Congress of the United 
States. And as we stand here, having taken an oath to defend the 
Constitution, this, my friends, is our moment to stand up for that 
oath, to act in defense of the Constitution.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Con. Res. 51. I ask Members on both sides 
of the aisle, who I know are ready to step forward in this moment, to 
join me.
  Thank you very much.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield the remaining 
time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and a captain in the U.S. Air Force 
Reserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a moment in time. The Middle East is 
awakening to freedom. They're seeing the opportunities that lie before 
them that we have experienced for hundreds of years, and they're 
begging for freedom.
  The greatest disinfectant to terrorism is not necessarily bombs. It's 
not necessarily armies. It's freedom. This war, this action in Libya, I 
believe sells itself. I believe it is in the United States' interests 
and in the interests of freedom-loving people everywhere to support it. 
But, Mr. President, you need to come to Congress, and you need to say 
what our interests are there and allow Congress to vote on that, 
because I believe the action in Libya sells itself.
  People all across are begging for this. In 50 years, when boys and 
girls in school read about the great awakening in the Middle East and 
the wars and the consternation that we used to have to fight and now 
you have a bastion of freedom, let us be on the right side of history. 
Let us be the ones that stood up with people that said, we're going to 
throw off the reins of terrorism and the reins of dictatorship. This 
sells itself.
  Thank you.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
remarks in debate are properly addressed to the Chair and not to the 
President.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 292, 
offered by Representative Boehner and H. Con. Res. 51, offered by 
Representative Kucinich.
  I strongly oppose putting any U.S. forces on the ground in Libya and 
voted in support of the amendment offered to the 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act by Representative Conyers which prohibited funds from 
being used for that purpose.

[[Page 8670]]

  These resolutions are both flawed. I cannot support either of them 
because they ignore the reasons the U.S. joined NATO operations in 
Libya and the president's efforts to keep Congress informed, and each 
fails to recognize the support role American forces now play since we 
transferred leadership of the mission to NATO.
  I disagree with the Boehner Resolution's accusation that the 
president has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale 
for U.S. military activities in Libya.
  On March 21, 2011, President Obama wrote to Congress notifying us of 
his decision to deploy U.S. forces against the Qaddafi Regime in 
response to a request from the Arab League. In his letter, President 
Obama stated that his actions were undertaken to prevent a humanitarian 
catastrophe and to address a growing threat to international peace and 
security.
  Further, the president fulfilled his pledge to greatly redefine the 
role of American forces and they now play a non-combat, supporting role 
comprised of intelligence gathering, logistics, surveillance and search 
and rescue.
  Finally, I oppose the Kucinich resolution's call for an immediate 
withdrawal of forces from Libya. In his speech last month on North 
Africa, the president said the U.S. joined the NATO operation in Libya 
because ``we saw the prospect of imminent massacre and we heard the 
Libyan people's call for help.''
  Not acting in the face of Qaddafi's threat to show ``no mercy'' to 
his people and to go door to door hunting them like rats would have 
been an abdication of our moral duty as global citizens and would have 
sent the wrong message to the tyrants of the world.
  In his speech on Libya the president said, ``To brush aside America's 
responsibility as a leader--and more profoundly--our responsibilities 
to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a 
betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to 
atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is 
different.''
  Given the convergence of special factors in Libya, I believe the 
president's decision has been justified.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 51, a 
bipartisan resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) 
of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces 
from Libya within 15 days after the adoption of this resolution until 
Congress is able to review how our Nation should move forward.
  With no stated goal, no input from Congress and no end in site, a 
continuation of our involvement in Libya is unreasonable and 
unconstitutional. With Congress considering cuts to Medicare, Medicaid 
and other vital programs, we cannot afford yet another war.
  We have now been involved in a war with Libya for over 60 days with 
no constitutionally required authorization for the use of military 
force or declaration of war. And we were not attacked. It is time for 
Congress to reassert its Constitutional war powers authority and end 
the war in Libya.
  I am proud to support this resolution by Representatives Kucinich, 
Burton and Capuano that gives Congress, and therefore the American 
people, the power to decide whether America enters into or continues a 
war.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the will of the American people and 
support this resolution.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of President 
Obama's foray into Libya, I have been a vocal critic of his decisions. 
Shortly after the United States' bombing campaign began in Libya, I 
spoke out in opposition, expressing my belief that intervention in 
Libya is not in the vital national security interest of the United 
States. I stand behind that belief today. In writings, interviews, and 
Armed Services Committee hearings, I have made it clear that I believe 
the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution. I am proud 
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle acted to send a clear 
message to the President and his Administration that they must take our 
country to war only when they absolutely must, and then only when they 
have fulfilled their Constitutional obligations, as defined in the War 
Powers Resolution.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both H. Res. 292 
and H. Con. Res. 51 which address our ongoing allied efforts in Libya. 
While I strongly support Congress's continued oversight and debate of 
the mission in Libya and its effect on our national security, I do not 
believe that either of the resolutions before us represent the most 
appropriate approach to this issue.
  I recently voted for an amendment to the FY2012 Defense Authorization 
Act to prohibit the use of American ground troops in Libya as the 
operation progresses, and I continue to believe this is the right path 
for America's involvement. However, it is not in the best interest of 
our national security today, or in the long term, to remove all forces 
from the effort, including U.S. Air and Naval assets, as H. Con. Res. 
51 demands. The ongoing NATO operation is intended to preserve the 
lives of the Libyan people. By completely removing ourselves from this 
effort, we weaken our global standing on human rights, risk damage to 
our relationship with NATO allies, and threaten our national security 
by putting the stability of the region in jeopardy.
  Similarly, while I support the ongoing discussion of our involvement 
in Libya and feel that the Administration's initial coordination and 
consultation with Congress could have been improved upon, I find H. 
Res. 292 unduly critical of the Administration's efforts. Furthermore, 
this resolution would have no actual impact on Congressional oversight 
of the President's authority or conduct of operations. Rather, it seems 
designed to serve a political purpose that does nothing to advance the 
genuine, substantive discussion we should be having about this issue.
  Congress should continue to debate U.S. involvement in the Libyan 
effort, however we must do so smartly and in a manner that does 
undermine our military efforts or global standing. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against both of these measures.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against both House 
resolutions that are the wrong response to the United States 
participation in an international coalition to deal with the 
humanitarian crisis in Libya.
  I do not, however, support an open-ended commitment. Additionally, my 
vote last week for the Conyers amendment to bar all funds from being 
used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the 
Armed Services or private security contractors on the ground in Libya 
makes clear I only support a limited U.S. role.
  Too often the greatest powers, including the United States, have 
failed to act when they could have intervened in a responsible way to 
stop the slaughter of innocents. In Libya, it was clear that there was 
a crisis developing and America, with our NATO allies, the Arab League, 
and the UN Security Council, appropriately provided limited support to 
rebel forces.
  That assistance included a no-fly zone that has undoubtedly saved 
thousands of lives.
  It would have been an unfortunate precedent and undermined key global 
institutions if we failed to act with such a clear, unified call for 
intervention.
  Inaction would have endangered the recent display of democratic 
aspirations by so many in the region.
  Our failure to act would have emboldened the despots of Syria, Iran, 
Yemen and others, suggesting there were no consequences for murdering 
peaceful protesters.
  Our primary role in the NATO mission has been to provide operational 
and logistical support to other countries that have taken the lead on 
enforcing UN Security Resolution 1973.
  The Kucinich resolution is ill-advised, requiring U.S. forces to 
cease all operational support for the NATO mission in Libya within 15 
days. I believe that we must not turn our backs on our allies and more 
importantly, the innocent civilians in Libya who want the right to 
choose their own government.
  Speaker Boehner's resolution, while not calling for an end to U.S. 
involvement in Libya, is factually inaccurate and attempts to rewrite 
history.
  I will welcome thoughtful legislation acknowledging that the U.S. has 
chosen to answer the cries of the innocent Libyan people, but makes 
clear that our commitment to their aspirations of self governance is 
not open-ended, and which clearly defines our goals and--more 
importantly--limits.
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 51 by 
my colleague Congressman Dennis Kucinich, which directs President 
Barack Obama to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not 
later than 15 days after the adoption of this concurrent resolution.
  Let me be perfectly blunt--the reason we are here today voting on two 
resolutions that deal with the President's role and responsibility 
under the War Powers Resolution is because of President Obama's failure 
to abide by the law, and our failure to address this issue before day 
74.
  The War Powers Resolution was enacted into law on November 7, 1973, 
overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. The law states that the 
President's powers as Commander in Chief to introduce United States 
forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only 
pursuant to either (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory 
authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the 
United States, its territories and possessions, or its forces.

[[Page 8671]]

  The War Powers Resolution requires the President--in every possible 
instance--to consult with Congress before introducing American armed 
forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or 
other specific congressional authorization, such as the Congressional 
Resolution that provided President George W. Bush authority to engage 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
  The War Powers Resolution also requires the President to report to 
the United States Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities 
or imminent hostilities, into foreign territory while equipped for 
combat, or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped 
for combat already in a foreign nation. Such a report is required 
within 48 hours. Once this report is submitted--or required to be 
submitted--the United States Congress must authorize the use of forces 
within 60 days, or the forces must be withdrawn within 30 days from the 
60 day mark.
  Before discussing the current situation the United States finds 
itself in, it is important for the American people to understand the 
reasoning behind the passage of the War Powers Resolution in the 1970s.
  Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the 
United States Congress the power to declare War, not the President. 
However, Article II, Section 2 declares that ``The President shall be 
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' Many 
Presidents have cited their authority under Article II, Section 2 to 
defend the United States against attacks, or to take actions in our 
nation's national security interest, through military action without a 
formal declaration of war.
  Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon used their 
authority as Commanders in Chief in order to send American combat 
``advisors'' forces into Vietnam beginning in the late 1950s. By the 
1968 Tet Offensive, the United States had over half a million troops on 
the ground in Vietnam engaged in intense military conflict. Unclear 
about the American strategy in Vietnam, many Members of Congress became 
concerned about their eroding authority granted by the Constitution to 
debate, decide and declare when to involve the United States in a war.
  As such, the War Powers Resolution enacted in order to ensure the 
checks and balances mandated by the United States Constitution would 
remain intact during times of armed conflict.
  On March 19, 2011, U.S. military forces began operations in Libya. 
Two days later, on March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed the 
United States Congress that Operation Odyssey Dawn was aimed at 
``assisting an international effort authorized by the United Nations 
Security Council . . . to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and 
address the threat posed to international peace and security.''
  To date, President Obama has not provided a clear and defined mission 
for the United States involvement in Libya. Since the opening hours of 
military action on March 19, the President has had no clear direction 
in Libya. President Obama has not defined the mission, defined success, 
nor defined the end state. Further, the President has still not 
identified who the so-called rebels are that are receiving millions of 
dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and 
resources, as well as attacks against Moammar Qadaffi's forces.
  As a 22-year Army combat veteran, I can tell you from experience that 
successful mission completion is obtained by properly defining the very 
things I have mentioned, which President Obama has failed to do. As a 
Member of the United States House of Representatives, I swore an oath 
to protect and defend American citizens against all enemies, foreign 
and domestic.
  Is Moammar Qadaffi an enemy of the United States--absolutely. But 
because President Obama has not informed us of whom the rebel forces we 
are supporting are, how can we be absolutely certain that they will not 
be an enemy of this country? Quite simply, we cannot because the 
President has failed to define our strategy.
  It has now been 74 days since President Obama informed the United 
States Congress on the introduction of American forces into Libya as 
required by the War Powers Resolution. Since March 21, 2011, the United 
States Congress has not declared war or enacted a specific 
authorization for the use of force, has not extended the 60-day period 
required by the War Powers Resolutions, nor is United States Congress 
physically unable to meet as a result of an attack upon the United 
States. In fact, United States Congress has met nearly 30 times since 
March 21, 2011. Therefore, President Obama is in violation of Title 50, 
Chapter 33 of United States Code--the War Powers Resolution.
  Section 5, Paragraph C of the War Powers Resolution states that ``at 
any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities 
outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and 
territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory 
authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the 
Congress so directs by Concurrent Resolution.''
  The Concurrent Resolution offered by Congressman Kucinich falls right 
in line with Section 1544 of the War Powers Resolution, and simply 
states that pursuant to Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution, the 
United States Congress directs the President to remove armed forces 
from Libya within 15 days of enactment.
  President Barack Obama is in violation of the law--plain and simple--
and he must comply with the law. The very foundation of our Republic 
lies on the rule of law, and is guarded by a system of checks and 
balances, and as a Member of the United States Congress, I have a 
Constitutional obligation to ensure this system is upheld.
  I support the Concurrent Resolution offered by Representative 
Kucinich.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
51, which expresses the sense of Congress that we must withdraw our 
armed forces from Libya no later than 15 days after H. Con. Res. 51 is 
adopted. It is the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare 
war. In my view, the President committed U.S. troops to a hostile 
environment without Congressional consent. Therefore, I voted for H. 
Con. Res. 51.
  Simply stated, military intervention endangers the lives of our brave 
men and women in uniform and that of civilians on the ground. And such 
a heavy responsibility necessitates concurrence by the Congress. 
Moreover, our Nation's long term foreign policy cannot be driven by 
threats of military action in every corner of the world. In order to 
achieve long-lasting peace and stability, we need to lead by example 
and look past the sword for solutions. As lessons in Afghanistan and 
Iraq have taught us, military action alone is not a winning strategy 
for long-term security and peace. Hearts and minds are not won over by 
tanks and bombs. Instead, they are won by engaging local populations 
and offering resources that uplift entire communities.
  I commend Representative Kucinich for bringing this Resolution to the 
Floor and I am proud to support it. I always have and always will use 
my vote and my voice to promote a foreign policy aimed at bringing 
lasting peace and prosperity to fragile, conflict-ridden regions around 
the globe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________