[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10011-10017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 68, AUTHORIZING LIMITED USE OF 
 ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2278, 
            LIMITING USE OF FUNDS FOR ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 328 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 328

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House 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, if 
     called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or 
     her designee. All points of order against consideration of 
     the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate, 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2278) to limit 
     the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect 
     to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, if 
     called up by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or 
     his designee. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 328 provides a closed rule 
for consideration of H.R. 2278 and H.J. Res. 68. The rule provides a 
total of 3 hours of debate in this Chamber on this vitally important 
issue of U.S. military operations in Libya. The rule also provides the 
minority with two separate motions to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, it was in this week in 1788, June 21, 1788, that the 
United States ratified its Constitution, that Constitution that still 
serves us so well today. In that Constitution, our Framers made clear 
that the power of the purse belongs here and here alone, here in the 
people's House, here on Capitol Hill; and that Constitution made clear 
that the power to declare war lies here and here alone.
  On June 3 of this year by a vote of 268-145 the House of 
Representatives passed a resolution asking the President to make clear 
what his intentions are in Libya, asking the President to come and 
consult with Congress, to get Congress' permission, to seek our 
authority to prosecute those hostilities in Libya.
  We have received some information from the White House since then. We 
have gotten a letter from the White House since then. We even have 
classified documents since then. But what we have not had since then, 
Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the American people to make their 
voice heard on this important issue, because, after all, this isn't an 
issue for Congress, because as a Congressman, it is not about my voice. 
It is about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that I represent 
that I bring here to Congress, and those people's voices have yet to be 
heard on this Libya issue.

                              {time}  0920

  Operation Odyssey Dawn is in full operation now, since the month of 
March, and the people's voice has still not been heard. But today, Mr. 
Speaker, the Rules Committee, as one of the longest-standing committees 
in this U.S. House of Representatives, first constituted in 1789, the 
Rules Committee is making that opportunity available with these two 
resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, my hope is that the people's voice will be heard today; 
that in this hour upon hour of debate that we have today, these two 
very different choices for where this country goes, that the American 
people will for the first time have their voice heard on the question 
of Libya.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we come back in July, we're going to 
take up the FY 2012 defense bill. In fact, we'll take it up tonight and 
start considering amendments when we return. We'll again have an 
opportunity to have our voice heard. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is an 
entire gradation of options that we have here. Are we going to declare 
war on Libya? Are we going to allow the President to continue doing 
what he's doing in Libya? Are we going to shut down the funding for 
troops on the ground on Libya? Are we going to shut down funding for 
Libya altogether? These are the questions that the Rules Committee has 
made available today and 2 weeks from now so that this House will be 
able to have its voice heard.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time, 
Mr. Speaker.
  We're considering matters of war and peace today. On Sunday, our 
Nation will have been engaged in military action in Libya for 100 days. 
The actions taken by the President have a grave impact on the 
constitutional role of Congress and the role of the United States 
abroad. Taken together, these are among the most important issues that 
we as Members of Congress will ever consider. These are the very 
debates that scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades 
to come.
  Given these fundamental issues, the American people deserve the full 
and thorough consideration that should be afforded to all legislation 
introduced in this body--with committee hearings and debate, followed 
by an open and regular process, and a thoughtful debate by the whole 
House.
  In 1990, when I was first here, the body considered a resolution 
regarding matters of war and peace. At the request of President George 
H.W. Bush, both Chambers of the United States Congress engaged in a 
fierce debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in 
the Persian Gulf. I have vivid memories of those debates long into the 
night, with issues being debated in committees, marked up by both 
parties, brought to the House floor for a final debate before the 
American public. On that particular measure concerning the Persian 
Gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 Members spoke. It was one of 
the most thorough airings of our constitutional obligations that I have 
witnessed.
  In exchanges that can be publicly accessed today, Members of the 
House and our colleagues in the Senate engaged in an intelligent and 
enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, the dangers, and 
necessities of passing a resolution authorizing American troops to 
engage in military force overseas. There were strong views on both 
sides of the aisle, but these views were accompanied by an overriding 
sense of duty to our country--a belief that Congress would reach a 
decision based upon the thoughtful and prudent vote of its Members and 
a reflection of a common interest of all its citizens.
  As historians look back on the debate over the Persian Gulf War, they 
can clearly see a vibrant democracy--a

[[Page 10012]]

democracy that is engaged in robust debate and a democracy earnestly 
working together for the best interest of its people. Two decades 
later, we stand in a room imbued with this history--that debate took 
place right here--but we avoid the robust debates that preceded us here 
today. Indeed, the way in which today's measures are being debated 
shame the dignity, history, and tradition of this body.
  Today's resolutions about our actions in Libya have been rushed 
through the House of Representatives. They were written behind closed 
doors and received neither committee hearings nor committee markups. 
The two resolutions are being considered under a single closed rule 
following an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday 
afternoon. The process by which these measures proceeded through the 
Rules Committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that 
we're being asked to vote for here today.
  Late Tuesday night--10 o'clock, I believe--we were given two 
resolutions for an emergency meeting on Wednesday. They were added as 
emergency items to our afternoon meeting. When we got to the Rules 
Committee, they had been pulled from the agenda. It wasn't until 9 p.m. 
Wednesday that we received the text of H.R. 2278. Yesterday, we were 
notified that the Rules Committee would meet on this new and unvetted 
bill, along with one of the original two resolutions, less than 3 hours 
before the meeting began. We now stand on the House floor being asked 
to vote for a closed rule. We will then be asked to consider two 
resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust 
the measures to reflect the true will of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret the shameful way this important debate has been 
rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will 
look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the 
legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future 
Members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how 
their forebearers shaped the fate of this country.
  In the case of the resolution of the Persian Gulf, they'll say how 
our democratic process thrived, whether one agreed with the resolution 
or not. Shamefully, in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a 
dysfunctional democratic process, one that has committed a disservice 
to the American people, to the dignity of the House of Representatives, 
and the future of the United States, by avoiding a true debate on one 
of the most important issues of our time.
  For these very reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
today's rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to a gentleman who has great reverence for the United States 
Constitution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this rule, although I have a lot of complaints 
about how we deal with the issue of war. This is a debate that should 
have gone on 4 months ago, before the war was started. And if we had 
done this properly, we wouldn't be bringing this up quickly today. No 
committee work, no discussion, no chance for amendment. But, 
nevertheless, I will support the rule because at least we get a chance 
to talk a little bit about what's going on in Libya.
  We have two resolutions that will come up under this rule. The first 
resolution, generally, I understand most individuals aren't too keen on 
this, because it's a literal endorsement--a rather explicit 
endorsement--of the war, so obviously I oppose H.J. Res. 68. But my 
greatest concern is about H.R. 2278. The way I read this resolution is 
that it essentially grants the same authority that we grant in the 
first Resolution because we say that no funds can be used--it denies 
the use of funds. But how can you deny the use of appropriated funds 
when they're using funds that weren't appropriated? It's so redundant. 
The funds were never appropriated. So, yes, it's a good statement. You 
don't continue to be illegal, is what we're saying.
  What I'm concerned about are the exceptions. All the exceptions are 
for the things that they're already doing, like search and rescue, 
intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, surveillance, refueling, 
operations planning, and doing everything except pulling the trigger. 
So we're legalizing the current war.
  I believe that H.R. 2278 is the first time that we in the Congress 
are making a statement of granting authority to the President to pursue 
this particular war. I am in strong opposition to that resolution as 
well, although I understand the other side of the argument because it 
says ``denial of funds.'' The author of the resolution said the reason 
why we have the exception is to protect the integrity of our contract 
or agreement with NATO. Well, in the resolution it says we have to stop 
the funding because we don't want to support NATO's war.
  So it's totally inconsistent. Makes no sense whatsoever. But it 
reminds me of the War Powers resolution. After the Vietnam War, we 
didn't want to get into that kind of war any more, so Congress, in its 
infinite wisdom, with good intentions, it designs the War Powers 
resolution, which legalized war for 90 days. That's part of the reason 
why we're here. We're worried about 90 days. But here we're going into 
the fourth month dealing with the War Powers resolution.

                              {time}  0930

  There is a simple solution to all of this, and that is to obey the 
Constitution. Don't allow our Presidents to go to war without a 
declaration of war, and we wouldn't be facing this problem of this 
debate that actually gets a little bit silly on restraining the 
President. Yes, we should. We should exert ourselves. We have the 
prerogatives, and we have the obligations. We have avoided it. It's 
time to stand up for the rule of law.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hastings resolution and in 
support of the Rooney resolution.
  This morning's paper, The New York Times, says that this is a 
dangerous resolution because it would allow the financing only for 
American surveillance, search and rescue missions, planning and aerial 
refueling. It would halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air 
defenses, and it would damage the Nation's credibility in its 
leadership of NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the Nation's credibility--that is to say 
its promise to go to war if backed by the President and not by 
Congress--ought to be damaged. We have been sliding for 70 years into a 
situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about 
whether to go to war or not, and the President is becoming an absolute 
monarch. We must put a stop to that right now if we don't want to 
become an empire instead of a Republic. This country was set up to be a 
Republic where the basic questions of war and peace are supposed to be 
answered by this Congress. Because of the exigencies of the Cold War, 
if the bombers are coming over the Pole, you don't have time to call 
Congress. We lost a lot of that power. We ceded it to the President.
  But in a situation such as Libya, whether the reasons for going there 
are good or ill, the fact is there was no imminent threat to the United 
States, and the Secretary of Defense said that. There was plenty of 
time to negotiate with the Arab League, and there was plenty of time to 
go to the U.N. There should have been time to have, not consultations 
with Congress, but the authorization from Congress. In the absence of 
that authorization, we have to put our foot down now and say ``no.'' If 
foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military 
intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good. That's a 
good thing.
  The power of the Presidency--and I'm not talking about this 
President--as was said by Charles James Fox in 1780, the power of the 
Crown, in this case the power of the President, has increased, is 
increasing and ought to be

[[Page 10013]]

diminished. This country's power to go to war or not must reside here 
except in extreme and urgent emergencies. It is time to put our foot 
down now by passing that resolution.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time.
  I rise today in support of this rule and of H.R. 2278, a bill to 
prohibit funds for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya except 
for operations involving search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance 
and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, and operational planning.
  In 2007, then the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, 
confidently proclaimed to the Boston Globe this comment: ``The 
President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally 
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve 
stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.'' However, now 
that he is not attacking political opponents, that stance has proven 
inconvenient, prompting one of his many, many flip-flops, such as his 
vote opposing to raise the debt limit.
  Regardless of one's position on the constitutional powers of the 
President as Commander in Chief or Congress' authority to declare war, 
the legislative branch unquestionably yields the power of the purse. 
This bill represents a proper exercise of that power, pure and simple. 
The bill does not leave our military personnel in dangerous 
circumstances without the funds or supplies they need. It does not 
require a precipitous withdrawal since, without a ground presence, 
there is nowhere from which to withdraw. The bill simply denies U.S. 
taxpayer funding for what the President calls a ``kinetic activity,'' 
but what the world recognizes as an ongoing bombing campaign in Libya.
  It is for these reasons and many more that I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and to support H.R. 2278.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are later this morning going to be engaged in one of 
the most important tasks of Congress, and that is what to do about war. 
Unfortunately, the administration--and I think they would agree to 
this--didn't adequately engage Congress in the process running up to 
the beginning of the Libya conflict and didn't sufficiently engage 
during the course of it. We are now in a position where we will be 
making some decisions today about how we want this Nation to proceed, 
whether we want to proceed with a full-on war or with limited or much 
more limited activity with regard to the support of NATO in the Libya 
fight.
  Unfortunately, all of this is now being rushed upon us here on the 
last day just before the break for the 4th of July. The amount of time 
to debate this on the floor is far too limited. It would have been our 
preference on the Democratic side to have had a more full discussion 
along the lines that the gentlelady from New York discussed in her 
opening comments--a full-on discussion about how we are to proceed. We 
are basically going to have two options, both of them with inadequate 
discussion. I guess we're down to that point now where we have no more 
alternative but to use the 1 hour, so here we are debating this issue 
at this moment.
  For me, there is a very important principle that was enunciated by 
the United Nations, which is the obligation to defend and protect. That 
was the basic rationale for this country moving forward with the Libya 
operation. Yes, the President should have come to us early. He should 
have come to us at the very beginning and allowed Congress to carry out 
its constitutional obligations, ``yes'' or ``no.'' But here we are. The 
obligation or the right or the necessity to defend is very important. 
That's why we're there. We need to provide the President with the 
necessary powers to carry out that obligation in a very limited period 
of time. We'll see that this afternoon or later this morning with the 
Hastings amendment.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has the 
opportunity today to actually have a serious debate on the war with 
Libya.
  Like most Americans, I am disappointed in any argument that says we 
are not at war. I believe that argument shows contempt for the 
Constitution and for the executive's coequal branch of government--the 
United States Congress.
  How can this not be war? If another country launched aggressive air 
strikes against the United States, you'd better believe we'd consider 
it an act of war. Does anyone remember Pearl Harbor or 9/11? We 
certainly considered those acts of war against our country. To say that 
our bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ``hostilities'' 
flies in the face of common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation can't afford a third war. The ones we are 
already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally. This Congress 
must reassert our power of the purse and not fund an unauthorized war. 
Today, we must send a clear message that the American people and this 
Congress will not support perpetual war.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Lawrenceville for his typical 
stellar management of this very important rule; but I have to say, Mr. 
Speaker, that it saddens me greatly that we are here on the House 
floor, dealing with this. We have been in the midst of what has been a 
celebration, a celebration as described as the Arab Spring.
  We saw a few months ago a young merchant in a small town in Tunisia 
very, very distraught over the fact that a government official came and 
took his scale away from him and took it to the government office.

                              {time}  0940

  He went back and asked for it, and when he made that request, he was 
denied it. He basically said he'd had enough, and so this young man 
chose to set himself afire in the middle of the town square in this 
tiny town in Tunisia.
  Now, as we all know, that launched what has become known as the Arab 
Spring. The Economist magazine very appropriately said that one of the 
great developments that the Arab Spring has wrought is that we have now 
seen those so-called ``barbarians'' in the Arab world, in the Muslim 
world, move towards self-determination. Many people in the West and in 
other parts of the world very arrogantly said there's no way in the 
world that those people could possibly make great strides towards 
political pluralism and development of the rule of law, self-
determination, but, in fact, we saw--beginning with this one very sad 
act--people throughout the Arab world in not only Tunisia, but Egypt, 
Bahrain and, yes, in Libya, demonstrate their frustration over 
authoritarian dictatorships that were actually undermining the 
potential of the people of each of these countries.
  So that's why, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that we are here 
today doing what it is that we're doing. Why? Because we should be in 
the midst of a celebration, a celebration of these very bold and 
dynamic steps that are being taken throughout the Arab world. And why 
is it that we're here? We're here because of what has been described by 
Members on both sides of the aisle--and I just heard my friend from New 
York describe the actions of this Presidency--as being the act of a 
monarch.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to look at recent 
history. If we go back to the 2006 election, the Republicans lost the 
majority in large part because of the war in Iraq. Democrats and 
Republicans alike acknowledge that.
  There's an important distinction that needs to be made. If one goes 
back and looks at the action that was taken

[[Page 10014]]

by President Bush, he chose to come to this Congress. He wanted the 
support of the American people through their elected Representatives 
and Senators to be behind his effort. We all know that he reached out 
to the United Nations, built a coalition, and there was lots of 
controversy. There, to this day, continues to be controversy. But the 
Congress was involved in that process, as has been the case in many 
instances in the past, not every instance, but many instances in the 
past.
  We know, as my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, 
just said, that President Obama when he was a candidate, United States 
Senator, was very critical of President Bush. We know that his campaign 
for the Presidency in large part centered around this notion of 
bringing home the troops, and we had his speech the before night last 
on dealing with Afghanistan and his notion that we were going to bring 
these efforts to an end.
  I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as we, I said, should be in the 
midst of celebrating the Arab Spring, we probably would have had, when 
one thinks about the actions that took place in Libya, we probably 
would have had, Mr. Speaker, pretty broad support here in the Congress 
for the action that was taken by the President if there had been an 
early authorization of this.
  Now, it is, as I said, very sad that we are here now because I think 
Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that this has been very, 
very poorly handled. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's any more 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that as we look at this, Mr. Speaker, I think we need 
to recognize that there are other very troubled spots in the world. We 
just, today, have gotten word of thousands of Syrians who are fleeing 
to Turkey because of the barbaric acts that have taken place there.
  So I think that as we look at the great positive steps that have been 
taken in the Arab world, we need to make sure that the United States 
Congress and the President of the United States are in this together. 
There should be consultation and authorization to deal with this.
  Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that as we look at this rule itself, I 
really am absolutely stunned, absolutely stunned at the kinds of things 
that I've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), knows, as we began debate on this, we had complete 
compliance with the 3-day layover requirement, and we had these 
measures before us. I would say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. 
Speaker, there was not a single amendment offered in the Committee on 
Rules to deal with this, not a single amendment offered, and, in fact, 
one of these measures is offered by a Republican, gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rooney); the other is offered by a Democrat, the other 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  And so when I think about 3 o'clock in the morning on June 25 of 
2009, we began the debate on this horrible idea of cap-and-trade, and 
it was 3 o'clock in the morning and I was sitting upstairs with my 
Rules Committee colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and dropped in my lap, still 
hot because it had just come off of the copying machine, was 300 pages 
of an amendment that we reported out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at 3 o'clock in the morning we were 
handed this measure.
  Now, what we have before us has, again, complied with the 3-day 
layover requirement, not a single amendment was offered, and there's a 
proposal offered by a Democrat and a proposal offered by a Republican. 
So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I believe that this rule is one 
that does allow for a free-flowing debate. It allows for an opportunity 
to consider this, and it's not as if we haven't been engaged in this 
discussion for a long period of time.
  My friend from Cleveland is here and he has played a very, very 
constructive role in leading the charge on this over the past several 
weeks, as he often does, and I believe that our ability to continue 
this debate is an important one.
  But again, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying it saddens me 
that at a time when we should be celebrating the fact there are people 
in the Arab world who are seeking the opportunity to enjoy the kinds of 
freedoms that we have here in the United States of America, that the 
President of the United States has chosen to go it alone without 
recognizing the very, very important responsibility of the first branch 
of the United States Government.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. The right to protect civilians has morphed into the so-
called right to change a regime and the right to destroy civilians. The 
situation is positively Orwellian, and it is all going wrong. Even 
early supporters of the war are changing their minds. I would quote 
from al Jazeera just a couple of days ago:
  ``Italy's foreign minister and the outgoing head of the Arab League 
have each called for a halt to hostilities in the war-torn north 
African country.
  ``Franco Frattini told members of Parliament on Wednesday that the 
suspension of military operations in Libya was `essential' for 
immediate humanitarian aid, while Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief, 
called for a political solution to the crisis.
  ``Moussa's sentiment was shared by the Italian foreign minister, who 
called for urgent humanitarian aid to trapped residents in cities like 
Tripoli and Misurata.
  ``He said the people in those areas face a `dramatic' humanitarian 
situation and added that a suspension of hostilities would also avoid 
`consolidating a division of Libya' between east and west.
  ``He said he hoped the European Council in Brussels on Thursday would 
highlight an end to the fighting in Libya as `a practical solution.'''
  The question is, Mr. Speaker, will Congress rush into the breach here 
while our allies are headed to the exit?
  H.R. 2278 by Mr. Rooney would immediately prevent the administration 
from engaging in direct offensive hostilities in Libya, and it ought to 
be supported.
  Now, the resolution isn't perfect. It doesn't end the war in its 
entirety immediately, but it does make clear that the United States 
will not take over the war as European support continues to diminish.

                              {time}  0950

  I proposed an amendment with Representative Amash of Michigan and 11 
others to the Defense authorization bill that would eliminate all funds 
for military operations in Libya. I urge a vote for this bipartisan 
amendment when we come back after the recess.
  H.R. 2278 and the Kucinich-Amash amendment are complementary. If we 
want to end U.S. involvement, we can do it in two steps: First step, 
vote for H.R. 2278; second step, vote for Kucinich-Amash when we come 
back.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning as someone who has opposed the 
Iraq war and consistently opposed the Afghanistan war under both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents. I think it is important to stop 
the politics this morning and recognize that mistakes were made by 
Presidents of all political parties.
  The War Powers Resolution that is now being debated as being 
unconstitutional by my Republican friends has a very strong purpose. It 
is the purpose

[[Page 10015]]

of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the 
Constitution of the United States and ensure that the collective 
judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the 
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into 
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly going 
to occur. Now we have Republicans suggesting that the War Powers 
Resolution is unconstitutional. What do they want? This is a political 
game.
  I voted for Mr. Kucinich's resolution, and the Republicans had the 
opportunity to also vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution. This is to 
embarrass the President.
  I agree with the underlying sentiment that this was handled badly and 
that there should have been consultation. Now there is an opportunity 
for authorization. We need to debate this not whether it is President 
Obama but whether or not there is a collaborative effort between NATO 
and the Arab League to address this hostile situation in Libya. And, 
frankly, I don't like the politics of this. The politics says, it's 
okay if it's a Republican President but not okay if it's Mr. Obama.
  I am interested in preserving the integrity of this Constitution and 
have consistently voted that Congress has a right to declare war. But 
we are now engaged in a consultation process, and I hope Members will 
engage in the debate on the basis of the right decision to make. I am 
against war. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. End the war in 
Iraq. But right now, this should not be Republicans against Democrats 
on the question of whether or not we are in a collaborative effort with 
NATO on this issue of Libya. We are attempting to save lives; take the 
politics out of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to yield the gentlelady 1 additional 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady.
  I went to the Libyan Embassy at the very start of this horrific 
crisis and stood with the Libyan ambassador that resigned and called 
for the resignation of General Qadhafi. Today I continue to call for 
the cessation of the violence and abuse against the Libyan people. But 
we have to address this question away from the cloud, as I indicated, 
of politics.
  We must adhere to the Constitution, Congress' right to declare war, 
but I can't understand this now backside debate about the War Powers 
Resolution being constitutional. For some of us, we believe that the 
contents of it insist that it is.
  So my point to my colleagues is, the Kucinich resolution was on the 
floor, and every Republican had the opportunity to vote for it. Why we 
are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had, 
I believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this 
administration and President Obama.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say I absolutely agree with the gentlelady. This is no place for 
politics. And that's why, as Mr. Kucinich has led this effort time 
after time after time, he's had tremendous support from the Republican 
side of the aisle.
  This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the 
Constitution of the United States. This is about the 911,000 people I 
represent back home. This is about the people's voice being behind the 
President. As the chairman of the Rules Committee said, this should not 
be a time for division. This should be a time for unification.
  I absolutely agree with my colleagues who are concerned about the 
debate happening today, on June 24. The time for the debate was March 
18. The time for the debate was before this got started to begin with. 
But we have been put in this box, Mr. Speaker, and we have a 
constitutional responsibility to find our way out of it. We have on the 
floor today under this rule two opportunities, two opportunities to 
make our constituents' voices heard, and I encourage a strong ``yes'' 
vote for this rule so that we can bring those opportunities to the 
floor.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I want to thank our ranking member for yielding and for her 
leadership and for this very important debate this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this debate, I believe, should have 
taken place at least 2 weeks prior to the war in Libya. The War Powers 
Act specifically forbids Armed Forces from engaging militarily in 
foreign lands for more than 60 days without congressional authorization 
of the use of military force or a declaration of war. And we should 
really make no mistake about it: We are at war in Libya today. We have 
been actively fighting the Qadhafi regime in Libya since March 19, 
which is 97 days ago.
  No one in this House now would defend the deplorable actions of 
Colonel Qadhafi and the decades he has spent repressing the Libyan 
people. But no one should fail to recognize that the actions we have 
taken in Libya since March 19 amount to a war. Missile strikes, naval 
attacks, bombings of strategic military targets, all of these actions 
would be a declaration of war if a foreign country launched such 
attacks on any country, including our own.
  We have committed $1 billion and thousands of servicemen and -women 
to a new front. And regardless of one's position on our involvement in 
Libya, one point is crystal clear: This debate should have happened 
before we launched a war in Libya.
  On March 30 of this year, I joined with Representatives Woolsey, 
Honda, Grijalva, and Waters, and we sent a letter to Speaker Boehner 
urging him to bring forth an authorization of the use of military force 
in Libya, stressing the need for a robust debate and vote in line with 
our congressional prerogative and, indeed, obligations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to 
the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Unfortunately, the Speaker did not grant our request, and we find 
ourselves here today debating this important constitutional issue well 
over 60 and even 90 days after hostilities began. So you will have to 
forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical about the political motives 
behind the floor actions that are scheduled today. Because we really 
need to understand that this is serious business, and it should not be 
politicized.
  This is not about this President or any President. This is not about 
politics or isolationism. This is about the War Powers Act and the 
Constitution. It's about standing up for this body and our important 
role in one of the most solemn and one of the most important decisions 
that we make as lawmakers, and that's the decision to declare war.
  Unfortunately, this resolution offered by my colleague from Florida 
(Mr. Rooney) that is before us today has many exemptions that are very 
broad and, of course, fall short of ending this war. I have some 
concerns in terms of some of the limitations and exemptions, in terms 
of making sure that this does not broaden the war with these 
exemptions.
  And I would hope the author, Mr. Rooney, would be able to clarify 
these items and reassure us that: (1) reconnaissance would be limited 
to intelligence gathering and not tactical operations and (2) refueling 
would be limited to intelligence and reconnaissance, not operations.
  Again, I hope we can clarify these points because we must stand up 
for the Constitution and this body.
  I hope that today we stand up for our Constitution. We must oppose, I 
believe, the resolution that gives carte blanche authorization to 
continue the war in Libya after the fact.

                              {time}  1000

  And I want to thank again our ranking member for allowing for this 
debate, and the chairman of the Rules Committee and Mr. Kucinich and 
everyone for at least encouraging this debate to move forward. I guess 
we could say today better late than never, but I

[[Page 10016]]

certainly wish we had adhered to our constitutional responsibility 
before the military engagement began.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule 
and remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate, we devoted 26 
hours to it, and 263 Members, more than half the House of 
Representatives, spoke.
  I agree with what has just been said by Ms. Lee: this is much too 
late. It comes at a very strange time, and it really says today that 
this is pretty much a political move, which I regret, because this is 
probably, as she pointed out, and those of us who've been here before 
having to vote for it, voting to go to war is the most solemn 
experience that we face here.
  So let me urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with my 
colleagues who say it's much too late. It is much too late. I wish we'd 
had that opportunity to have this conversation before hostilities 
began.
  I am new to this body, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps my colleagues knew 
hostilities were getting ready to begin. I did not. I heard about it on 
CNN. There was no consultation with Congress before those hostilities 
began. That was the right time to have this debate. That time has 
passed.
  And for those who say delay, delay, delay, I'll tell you, it's 
already too late. We cannot delay any further.
  And I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee has made 
these two resolutions available because you have two very clear choices 
today, Mr. Speaker.
  As you know, on the Senate side there's the Kerry-McCain resolution. 
And this resolution that we have from Mr. Hastings today largely 
mirrors that resolution. If you believe that what's going on in Libya 
is in the best interest of the United States, if you believe we have a 
national security interest in Libya, if you believe that the Congress 
should make clear that we are behind the President and what's going on 
in Libya, you have that choice today in the resolution offered by Mr. 
Hastings.
  If you believe that this is just another example of a war that's 
going to escalate, and you're concerned about that escalation, and you 
want to put yourself on the record as saying no, no more, no more, you 
have your chance to do that today with the Rooney resolution. No more.
  I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a copy of Constitution of the 
United States of America, again, ratified this week in 1788. Article I, 
section 8: the Congress shall have the power to declare war. Article I, 
section 9: no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence 
of appropriations made by law.
  Mr. Speaker, it's easy to say that foreign policy is the dominion of 
the President of the United States, and it is. But the purse is the 
dominion of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  I want to hearken back again to what the chairman of the Rules 
Committee said on the floor earlier: this should be a time of 
celebration. And, Mr. Speaker, when we have troops in harm's way, it 
should be something that we are unified behind and believe in as a 
Nation, that we are ready to prosecute a war effort to the fullest 
extent and bring our men and women home victorious.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a topic of unanimity. This is not a 
topic that we have found any sort of agreement on whatsoever in this 
body. In fact, this is a topic that we have been focused on and focused 
on and focused on, trying to bring to conclusion in this House. And 
this rule today, Mr. Speaker, gives us that opportunity.
  Now, I want to make clear there's a further step that we could go. We 
could go one step further that says no funds shall be used, period. And 
when we return to this body, Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues, Mr. 
Kucinich and Mr. Amash, are going to make that amendment available to 
us, and I will be voting ``yes'' when that amendment comes down the 
pike.
  But for today, we have an opportunity to take a step in that 
direction. We have an opportunity to make our voices heard. Are you 
with it, or are you against it? Do you support what's going on in 
Libya, or do you believe we're headed in the wrong direction as a 
Nation?
  You have that opportunity today; but only, Mr. Speaker, if you vote 
``yes'' for this rule to make these two measures in order. I urge a 
strong ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe we do need proper congressional 
authorization for the military operations we are conducting in Libya, 
and we need a clear definition of the mission and our objectives.
  I would very much like to vote for such a measure, but that is not 
the legislation before us today. Neither bill meets this test.
  Instead, we have been presented with two unsatisfactory options: an 
unfortunate choice between a cut-off of all funds for the Libya 
operation, or support for a broad authorization for the use of force--
except for the deployment of ground forces--that lasts for one year.
  Moreover, under the rules established by the Republican leadership, 
no amendments are permitted to either measure.
  So these are up-and-down votes on a very critical issue involving the 
ongoing engagement of our military forces against Libya--on a take-it-
or-leave-it basis.
  Neither of these measures has my support today.
  I have never viewed Libya as being in the vital national security 
interests of the United States. That in itself is a flashing warning 
sign and a presumption against military involvement in Libya. This is 
true notwithstanding the enormous hopes that rose with the democratic 
uprising that erupted this spring--and the anger and outrage we feel as 
those expressions for freedom and an end to Qaddafi's tyranny and 
corruption have been met with the most brutal repression.
  In March, Qaddafi blatantly threatened to exterminate tens, if not 
hundreds, of thousands of his people. Key NATO allies, particularly 
Britain and France, viewed this crisis as vital to their national 
security interests, and urged us to join a military campaign that would 
prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
  In pursuit of this goal, President Obama commenced U.S. participation 
in NATO military activities in March.
  At the outset of the Libya operation in March, I was afraid that we 
would in fact end up where we are today: a conflict that has lasted for 
months, not weeks, as the President indicated would be the case, and 
with a highly inconclusive situation on the ground.
  This operation has carried significant internal tensions from the 
very beginning. The purpose of the military campaign was to protect the 
Libyan people from Qaddafi, but not explicitly to oust him. 
Nevertheless, the scope and scale of military activities, in the face 
of the stalemate between Qaddafi and the opposition forces, suggests 
that the conflict cannot be resolved until Qaddafi is removed.
  Second, while President Obama has consulted extensively with 
Congress, he has not sought authorization for U.S. military involvement 
pursuant to the War Powers Act. I disagree strongly with his 
determination that the military campaign we are supporting and 
prosecuting does not constitute ``hostilities'' within the meaning of 
the War Powers Resolution. Active support for military operations that 
involve extensive bombing of Libya plainly constitutes ``hostilities.''
  It is therefore regrettable that, in addressing this complex and 
difficult situation, we are presented with two unsatisfactory choices. 
As I previously stated earlier this month when we took votes on Libya, 
a sharp cut-off of funds, as provided today in H.R. 2778, is the wrong 
thing to do. If this became law, we would run out on our NATO allies. 
Qaddafi would be freer to resume murdering his own people with 
impunity. And other tyrants in the region, such as Assad in Syria, 
would be emboldened in their determination to crush democratic 
movements in their countries.
  But providing continued support for up to one year of the current 
military campaign is also unacceptable to me, even though it includes 
the very important limitation on the deployment of U.S. ground forces--
a limitation I strongly support. Should the current stalemate in Libya 
continue indefinitely, such a commitment invites more and more 
aggressive use of force in order to resolve it. This carries the 
significant risk that we will find ourselves, months from now, more 
deeply embedded in Libya and not any closer to a successful outcome and 
conclusion.
  While Libya is not in our vital national security interests, standing 
with our NATO allies

[[Page 10017]]

very much is. Accordingly, I would support a limited authorization for 
continuing support for NATO's military campaign to protect the Libyan 
people, but for a much shorter period of time than provided by H.J. 
Res. 68.
  I believe the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should come directly 
to Congress to seek a limited authorization of military support for our 
NATO allies, and Congress should promptly act on it. This would help 
secure a stronger consensus behind a much more limited and well-defined 
campaign, and ensure that it is truly conducted in pursuit of our 
national security and policy interests.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 167, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 492]

                               YEAS--240

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

                               NAYS--167

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bachus
     Berg
     Bishop (UT)
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Denham
     Engel
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     LaTourette
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Simpson
     Stivers
     Towns
     Watt
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1031

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WU changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 
492. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 328, the 
rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 68, Authorizing the 
limited use of United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO 
mission in Libya; and consideration of H.R. 2278, to limit the use of 
funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed 
Forces in support of NATO operations in Libya.

                          ____________________