[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10028-10042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            LIMITING USE OF FUNDS FOR ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I call up 
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, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 328, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2278

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS 
                   FOR UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF 
                   NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR WITH RESPECT 
                   TO LIBYA.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be 
     obligated or expended 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.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation on funds under subsection 
     (a) does not apply with respect to--
       (1) search and rescue;
       (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
       (3) aerial refueling; and
       (4) operational planning.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 19 of this year, the President sent us into 
military activity, or war, in Libya. Within 48 hours, the President 
notified the Congress in accordance with the War Powers Act of his 
decision to do so. For 60 days, the President under the War Powers Act 
had the opportunity, and chose not to, to come to this body and make 
the case as to why being in Libya was important. On the 60th day, he 
wrote a letter to this body saying that he would welcome authorization 
but he's not asking for it.
  Time and time again on the Armed Services Committee, we were 
presented with speakers from the administration who would give certain 
updates on various matters to which I would ask: Are you here to ask 
authorization for ongoing activity in Libya? And the speakers, the 
witnesses, would say, ``No.''
  After 90 days and the President has not ceased activity or 
hostilities in Libya, the time has come and gone and we've sent our 
indication over to the administration time and time again that we 
disapprove. But because the War Powers resolution, by some either 
Republican or Democrat or in the House or the Senate, is questionable 
whether or not they consider it constitutional or not, the President 
has operated in what we now know is called the zone of twilight as to 
whether or not he even needs our approval.
  So what are we left with? Mr. Speaker, we're left with, today, our 
ability under the power of the purse to restrict funds from ongoing 
operations in Libya. Without it and without the Supreme Court weighing 
in on whether or not the War Powers is unconstitutional, in my opinion, 
the President is breaking the law, but he is being restricted by nobody 
and being able to continue unfettered.
  Some have said that the War Powers resolution isn't worth the paper 
that it is written on. To that I say: Based on what Supreme Court 
decision? Based on what precedent? There is none, because the courts 
haven't weighed in on it. I know some of our colleagues here have a 
pending case before the Court, and I wish them well, but what if they 
don't accept the case? What if they say these Members, as they have 
said before, don't have standing? Then we're right back to square one.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to the 
executive branch, and this transcends party but it exerts our power 
under the separation of powers, to say we, the House of 
Representatives, are relevant; we, the House of Representatives, are 
exercising our ability that the Founding Fathers gave us in the ability 
to declare war because they wanted us to have this deliberation, this 
debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on 
both sides that have been very good, because the last thing that we 
want as Americans is for some President, whether it's this President or 
some future President, to be able to pick fights around the world 
without any debate from another branch of government.
  It's the most difficult thing we have to do as government officials, 
and that's send our kids into harm's way. So it has to be a sober, 
deliberative, long debate, and the President has 60 days and chose not 
to engage in that debate. So here we are today saying, if you choose 
not to come here and get authorization, we are going to stop it until 
you do. The President always has the ability in the future to come and 
try to get authorization for what he's doing in Libya or anywhere else.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill to withdraw funding 
from future engagement in Libya.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The bottom line with this resolution--and I think the gentleman made 
a lot of very fair points. I certainly think that the White House could 
have handled it better in terms of communicating with Congress. But 
what this resolution would do that he has presented would be to end our 
mission in Libya. So all of the debates and arguments that you heard 
from the previous discussion apply to this just as well.
  It has some limited options in terms of what the President could 
continue to do in support of NATO, but it very specifically disallows 
any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. 
It does allow for aerial refueling. It allows for rescue missions, but 
what the military has made clear is they will not do that without all 
of the other assets that are necessary to suppress enemy fire. We are 
not going to send up our aerial refueling apparatus or aerial refueling 
planes if we know we can't protect them from being shot down.
  So the effect of this resolution is to, again, end the mission in 
Libya, and people have different opinions about where they should come 
down on that. I don't believe that we should end the mission in Libya. 
I do believe that Congress' voice should be heard on this issue, and 
that is why I supported the resolution that would have authorized that. 
So I don't think that we should stop what we're doing in Libya, and 
getting back to the previous debate, there have been some comments that 
have been made that I want to be sure and correct.
  I think we have a much better idea of who the forces in Libya 
fighting against Muammar Qadhafi are than has been said, and we know 
this because they control roughly half the country right now. What our 
mission was able to do, it stopped Muammar Qadhafi from being able to 
crush the folks who are rising up against him and retake the territory 
that they have. So in Benghazi and in most of I think it's

[[Page 10029]]

eastern Libya, it is controlled by these opposition forces, and by all 
accounts, they are running a very sensible government. It is not an 
Islamic state. It does not have al Qaeda influence. It has a bunch of 
people who are simply trying to exercise free expression that they have 
been denied for nearly 40 years by Muammar Qadhafi. We have a very good 
idea who these people are. They are precisely the type of people that 
the United States of America should be supporting.
  And as I mentioned before, in our great struggle against al Qaeda, 
one of the centerpieces of it is ideological. The ideology that bin 
Laden and many others advance is very anti-Western, and their biggest 
argument is that the West has consistently supported governments that 
have repressed the Muslim people, that we have not been good for them, 
and there are at least one or two instances when that argument actually 
has some facts to back it up. And now we are presented with the chance 
to support a legitimate group of people who want basically what we 
have--democracy. They want the ability to vote for their 
representatives. They want a voice in their government, and we are 
going to pull the rug out from under them.
  And keep in mind, this is a very limited mission. It is NATO-led, but 
we are offering critical support to make it possible, and if we vote 
for the Rooney resolution, we will pull all of that away and right at 
the moment--in fact, there was a newspaper story this morning about how 
Qadhafi is talking about leaving Tripoli because the pressure is 
getting too great on him. We have had continual members of the Libyan 
Government abandoning Qadhafi. He is ready to fall, and those voices of 
Libyan people who want the very freedoms that we all say we want for 
them are ready to rise, and we are going to reverse that by pulling out 
this minimal level of support that we are offering.
  That is the effect of the Rooney resolution, and therefore I oppose 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time and 
I commend him for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and in defense of 
the Constitution. The Founding Fathers clearly intended for Congress to 
have the power to commit this Nation into armed conflict.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall 
have the power to declare war. Our first Commander in Chief, George 
Washington, knew that when he said, ``The Constitution vests the power 
of declaring war in Congress; therefore, no offensive expedition of 
importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated 
upon the subject and authorized such a measure.''
  That is exactly what this bill is about, and President Obama, when he 
was a Senator, knew this when he said that, ``The President does not 
have power under the Constitution to authorize a military attack in a 
situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat 
to the Nation.''
  He went on further to say that, ``No law can give Congress a backbone 
if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made 
it.''
  I couldn't agree more with him, but, unfortunately, as President, Mr. 
Obama appears to no longer agree with his prior interpretation of the 
Constitution, and in reviewing the War Powers Act, we can argue that it 
is unconstitutional, but that is for the Supreme Court to decide.
  In applying the War Powers Act to the facts here in this case, it is 
clear that the President failed to comply with the requirements to get 
congressional approval; and when we examine the merits of the case for 
involvement in Libya, this administration has wholly failed to define a 
clear national interest, mission, or goal.

                              {time}  1230

  Why are we there? Are we there to kill Qadhafi or to provide 
humanitarian aid? And since when does humanitarian aid come from a 
missile launched from a Predator drone? And who are these rebels that 
we are supporting? The administration has failed to provide Congress 
with a clear answer to this question, but we do know that some of them 
are tied to terrorist organizations.
  The bill introduced by my good friend from Florida (Mr. Rooney) 
reasserts Congress' role as a coequal branch of government, and it 
sends a clear message to the President that he must get congressional 
approval before he commits this Nation to war, as he stated when he was 
in the United States Senate.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Smith) for his leadership and for characterizing where we are 
today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture.
  I'm looking at the vote count, and it looks as if 225 Republicans 
voted against a time certain to get out of Libya. If you read the bill 
H.R. 2278--and I am looking at it over and over again--there really is 
no print as to a time certain. There is a nebulous statement about 
limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational 
planning. That can go on ad infinitum. We can take the American 
people's money forever and ever and continue in this effort.
  I don't like where we are today. Constitutionally, it is true, it is 
Congress' right to declare war. And the War Powers resolution--which my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on its 
constitutionality, and of course they've used it in the past--does 
indicate that it was done in order to track the Constitution and allow 
congressional consultation. There was a letter sent by the President. 
There has been a report sent. But there's no doubt that this was not 
handled right.
  But in the Iraq war, an unnecessary war, no Arab League States asked 
us to join with them. There was no defined threat to the United States 
in the Iraq war, as we've said. We left the Afghanistan war to 
dillydally in Iraq and lose 4,000 soldiers. So where is the hypocrisy 
here?
  Right now, the Arab League has asked us to join them. Right now, our 
NATO allies are engaged in trying to get rid of an oppressive abuser 
and a person who has killed his own people. Where is the dignity on 
this place? It's nothing but politics. And I respect my colleagues who 
want to make choices about which direction they want to go. But I will 
tell you, I would much rather vote for something that is time certain, 
ending in 1 year or before. And if there is not a definitive end, then 
I will offer a privileged resolution to get out of Libya.
  But I don't want to abandon my friends in the Arab States who are now 
struggling for democracy. Why is Syria different? Why is Yemen 
different? Why is Bahrain different? You are absolutely right. Because 
other forces are engaged in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. And the Arab 
States are attempting to negotiate.
  So I am not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds of wars. 
I'm not interested in going to Syria or Yemen or Bahrain. But I am 
interested in being consistent.
  We now have an operation, and we can tell that there is movement by 
those who are rebels. And I would like my friends to document for me, 
if they have got a documented presence of al Qaeda, then they can tell 
us that. But right now, we have an obligation, and we can't play 
politics. And this bill is nothing but politics because it does not end 
when we're supposed to get out. It does it ad infinitum.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It is a continuous, unending obligation to 
be in Libya. I would much rather have a definitive act which is to say 
that we

[[Page 10030]]

have no more than a year. And I would offer to the White House that we 
would like reports sooner than that, and some of us may wish to go 
forward with another resolution to move us out.
  But I will not be supporting politics today. I have to support those 
who are fighting for justice in Libya.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to express my disappointment with the 
Administration's decision not to consult with the Congress over the 
important and critical actions taken in Libya. Our government operates 
based upon a constitutionally protected system of checks and balances. 
It does not matter whether or not the Administration is Democrat or 
Republican. What is important is ensuring the role of Congress when 
determinations are made to engage in military actions in foreign 
countries. The War Powers Resolution was intended to ensure that any 
action taken by an Administration which utilizes military forces would 
require the involvement of this body.
  As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United 
States. The issue before us raises the debate on how to apply the War 
Powers Resolution. As this resolution has not been declared 
unconstitutional it is important to follow our laws as written. This is 
a reminder to the American people that we must firmly hold true to our 
constitutional duties. We have the power to ensure the Executive does 
not overstep its bounds. As Members of Congress, we can exercise our 
power through appropriation, the appointment process, exercising 
oversight over the Executive, enactment legislation, or even 
establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse of power by the 
Administration.
  The War Power resolution is an integral part of our process. The 
actions that have taken place in Libya raise the debate on how the War 
Power Resolution should be applied.
  Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers have long 
argued about which branch of government has the power to decide whether 
the nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches 
has not always taken place. In 1973, The War Powers resolution was 
passed over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures 
for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. 
Armed Forces into hostilities.
  Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause 
which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to 
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not 
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the 
Constitution in the Government of the United States. . . .'' The policy 
behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander in Chief, to 
deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised only pursuant 
to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or 
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its 
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' Pursuant to this 
authority, the President ``in every possible instance'' shall consult 
with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed Forces, and to continue 
consultations as long as the armed forces remain in hostile situations.
  As we consider this Joint Resolution, we must also consider facts 
surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya, and the 
consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan 
people. I value the importance of a fair, just, and balanced approach. 
We must always act in compliance with our nation's constitution.
  Prior to this conflict, since assuming power, Colonel Qaddafi has 
ignored the needs of the Libyan people; choosing instead to train other 
oppressive leaders in intelligence and weaponry. Qaddafi had given 
money to dictators such as Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor, and 
intervened in foreign wars instead of investing in education and 
infrastructure for the betterment of his own people.
  Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently 
reported the lack of free press and free speech in Libya. The State 
controls the media and speaking out against Qaddafi or his government 
is not only illegal, it is also deadly. Qaddafi and his army executed 
activists who opposed the government and broadcasted their deaths on 
television.
  Qaddafi was particularly intolerant of women and other minorities. He 
established ``social rehabilitation'' centers, where women who were 
designated financially or morally vulnerable were detained 
indefinitely. Homosexuality was deemed criminal, and punished with up 
to five years in jail.
  Now, the people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for 
democracy. This current conflict in Libya began four months ago, when 
Colonel Qadahfi failed to do what was right for his country and its 
people. Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt the painful 
consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil liberties were 
infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of all, many 
Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed under the 
command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a conflict with 
a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were authorized by the 
hand of the Libyan leader himself.
  I applaud efforts to come to the aid of the Libyan people. I condemn 
Colonel Qadahfi's despicable and inhuman actions, and support the 
President in our national policy--and the World's policy--of removing 
this tyrant from power. The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated 
and continues to be encouraged by the very man charged with protecting 
the Libyan people. The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside 
assistance; the question is no longer whether or not Libya is in a 
critical condition. I call on my fellow Members of Congress to continue 
to condemn the violence taking place in Libya.
  We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight 
for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life. Colonel 
Muammar Qadahfi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the 
Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. When 
faced with the shadow of oppression, the suppression of liberties, and 
the constant threat of brutality, history has shown that humanity will 
always rise up in protest, and if necessary, in armed resistance.
  Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of 
Libyan citizens, Qadahfi chose to remain steadfast to the status quo--
to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of 
blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake 
and lust for power. The reality of the situation is this: it was 
Qadahfi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that has 
led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same 
error as we continue to deliberate the role of the U.S. and the 
decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people. Colonel 
Qadahfi has proved himself to be, by the standards of any free nation, 
an illegitimate leader of the Libyan people. He has utilized snipers, 
helicopters gunships, mercenaries and gangs of hired thugs to harm his 
own people throughout the course of the protests. Rebels taking to the 
streets demanding free elections were injured and killed.
  No leader should remain in power after committing the indiscriminate 
slaughter of thousands of their own citizens; no leader should remain 
in power after ordering soldiers to fire upon crowds of defenseless, 
peaceful protesters; no leader should remain in power after executing 
hundreds of soldiers who bravely refused to carry out orders to shoot 
their fellow citizens in cold blood.
  My message to Qadahfi is clear: stop the slaughter, stop the killing, 
and stop murdering your own people. I demand you step down from power! 
I implore you to consider and value the lives of your people. Stop the 
violence. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United Nations, the 
African Union, and other world groups to stop the slaughter and 
violence against the people of Libya.
  As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in 
calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight 
for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Colonel Qaddafi.
  For over four months, NATO-led air strikes in Libya have inflicted 
serious damage upon the Qaddafi regime's war machine, yet loyalist 
forces continue to demonstrate cohesiveness and operational superiority 
over besieged rebel forces. Still, some analysts suggest the stalemate 
is now yielding to a war of attrition favoring the rebels. Rebel combat 
skills have improved, as has their arsenal, which now reportedly 
includes vehicle-mounted antiaircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and 
mortars.
  As rebels consolidate recent gains, NATO has proven to be the 
equalizing force. The African Union continues to press for a peace deal 
that was accepted by Qaddafi but rejected by the opposition because it 
would leave Qaddafi in power. With the support of the United States, 
United Nations, and NATO we must continue to push for the support of 
the African Union resolution. Turkey also has proposed a roadmap to 
establish an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, secure humanitarian 
aid corridors, and advance a political process for a transition. 
However, Turkey has not yet provided an implementation strategy other 
than making it clear that Qaddafi must go.
  After the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, engaged in peace 
talks with Qadahfi most of the world believed the bloodshed would end. 
Today, it is clear that Qadahfi is going to continue to fight to stay 
in power.
  We cannot stand by and watch as the people of Libya suffer. We need 
and must provide

[[Page 10031]]

humanitarian aid. Americans have always come to aid of their neighbors 
in times of crisis.
  We must continue to remember the context upon which we are currently 
operating in the world today. The Middle East is finally awaking to 
democracy and freedom. Advancing these objectives also advances our 
nation's security. The evidence is clear of an Arab Spring. The 
evidence is compelling all we need to do is look at Egypt, Byrahn, 
Yemen, Syria, and Libya to watch the effects of voices that are calling 
for democracy.
  The Founders distributed the decision to go to war between the two 
political branches to assure that the decision would be made carefully. 
The founding generation experienced the hardship of several wars and 
they knew war's human and financial costs. They understood that a 
strong executive who is already given the title ``Commander in Chief,'' 
might flex the country's military strength injudiciously. Giving 
Congress the essential power to declare war allows heads to cool, 
alternatives to be considered, and makes certain there is consensus if 
the country is called to fight.
  I continue to support the premise that Congress has the right to 
declare war, and our current debate must reflect this imperative. 
Congress has a right to assert its authority; however, the situation in 
Libya gives me great pause.
  H.J. RES 68, ``Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed 
Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya,''
  Authorizes the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed 
Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission to enforce U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 1973, as requested by the Transitional 
National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Arab 
League.
  This bill will terminate such authorization one year after the date 
of enactment of this joint resolution. Further, H.J. Res. 68 states 
that consistent with the policy and statements of the President, 
Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the 
presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in 
Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate 
personal defense of U.S. government officials (including diplomatic 
representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent 
danger. It requires the President to consult frequently with Congress 
regarding U.S. efforts in Libya, including by providing regular 
briefings and reports. Includes as elements in such briefings and 
reports:
  (1) an updated description of U.S. national security interests and 
policy objectives in Libya;
  (2) an updated list of U.S. Armed Forces activities in Libya;
  (3) an updated assessment of the opposition groups in Libya, 
including potential successor governments; and
  (4) an updated explanation of the President's legal and 
constitutional rationale for conducting military operations in Libya 
consistent with the War Powers Resolution.
  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,'' this bill prevents 
the use of funds to pay for United States participation in any aspect 
of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort except 
intelligence, surveillance, search-and-rescue and other ``non-hostile'' 
support activities. I am for peace and not war, however I am not for 
politics of the Republicans that vote against Democratic Presidents but 
for Republican Presidents. This war is an effort for humanitarian 
assistance in Libya. The Libyan people were being attacked and were 
dying by their own leader.
  Although, I am again disappointed by the continuing actions of the 
Administration that are taking place without the consultation of 
Congress. This should not cause us to ignore the plight of the Libyan 
people. We must continue to insist on providing the technical 
assistance and weapons necessary to defeat this regime. I will vote 
against H.R. 2278 because it is a political game and does not have a 
time certain to leave Libya.
  The resolution cuts off funds just to embarrass President Obama. I 
want peace to come to Libya in the right way. Efforts to support action 
by the African Union, European Union, NATO and other U.S. allies only 
advance our call for democracy that is now being heard and is spreading 
throughout the Middle East. This can be done while complying with the 
War Powers Resolution, that is why I will support H.J. Res. 68 for now 
which sets a time of before one (1) year this war should end. I want 
the conflict to end sooner, I therefore reserve the right to offer a 
resolution on the floor to end this war.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would beg to depart from the remarks of the 
distinguished gentlelady from Texas because there are those of us who 
oppose this bill in principle, and we believe we are fighting for 
justice as well.
  I want to state that if you believe the war should end, then at least 
believe we should limit it today. That's what Mr. Rooney does. I oppose 
this war. It's unconstitutional. It's in violation of statute. And 
there's a two-step way to end the war: Vote for Rooney, step one, and 
then the Kucinich-Amash amendment, which defunds the DOD bill. You can 
do that when we come back.
  But to claim that the Arab League is somehow asking for us to 
continue this attack on Libya is plain false. The fact of the matter is 
we have al Jazeera reporting that Italy's foreign minister and the 
outgoing head of the Arab League have each called for a halt to 
hostilities in Libya. It was reported that 2 days ago, Amr Moussa, the 
outgoing head of the Arab League, said now is the time to do whatever 
we can to reach a political solution, and that has to start with a 
genuine cease-fire under international supervision. So you don't have 
the Arab League's head here saying, Oh, America, come on. Go for it. 
Prosecute the war. Bomb Libya. No, they're not saying that at all. We 
have to be very clear about that.
  Even China, who's eating our lunch financially, they're not involved 
in this war. They're saying there ought to be a political solution, 
that from the Chinese minister 2 days ago. We've got to be careful 
about our intentions here. And our intention should be to end this war, 
and we can do it with Mr. Rooney's bill.
  The bill 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.
  The Kucinich-Amash amendment is complementary to the bill. We want to 
end U.S. involvement in the war in Libya. We can do it in two steps. 
Vote ``yes'' for Mr. Rooney's bill, which ends direct hostilities 
immediately, and support Kucinich-Amash when it comes up in 2 weeks.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Smith for yielding me the time.
  I rise in support of this bill as well as the prior resolution, as 
it's better late than never. Here again, with Libya, Congress follows 
in the wake of a major executive branch military action absent 
congressional authorization.
  I sent a letter to President Obama on March 22 regarding what was 
then called Operation Odyssey Dawn and have never gotten an answer. 
When one looks at the duration of U.S. military engagements in the 
Middle East, north Africa, and central Asia and what the future might 
bring, these are the longest wars and military actions in U.S. history.
  Our Nation has fallen into deep debt directly connected to our 
expenditures of over $1 trillion in the past decade on wars that have 
not been paid for. Moreover, creeping defense commitments in that 
region and globally now consume over half of the U.S. discretionary 
budget annually. It is an astounding predicament 20 years after the end 
of the Cold War, as jobless Americans question whether our Federal 
Government even sees their plight.
  We all know freedom is not free, but it is largely the American 
people that are bearing this military burden more and more each year. 
What is most striking is that other nations in the region in which we 
are fighting are simply not carrying anywhere near their fair share of 
the load of boots on the ground, nor have they measured up either in 
terms of putting their treasuries at risk. Unless an alliance of 
nations in that region fight for freedom themselves, they won't own it, 
and we can't transfuse it.
  Sadly, compared to the moral justification for World War II, which 
historians termed ``America's most just

[[Page 10032]]

foreign war,'' our Nation in the current period has drawn into resource 
wars in farflung places that history is likely to judge as morally 
indefensible.
  The world is full of bad dictators, but it always seems the dictators 
America is most interested in are those that sit atop huge oil 
reserves. Libya has the world's ninth largest oil reserves and exports 
1.5 million barrels a day.
  I will be placing several articles in the Record that document 
Western Europe's dependence, as well as Canada's reliance, on Libya's 
oil investments and the Libyan President's threats to nationalize those 
investments, which even has affected China.
  The West's utter and growing reliance on imported petroleum has 
twisted our foreign policy and crippled our domestic economy time and 
again.

                              {time}  1240

  As we import half of what we consume, until Americans clearly see our 
predicament, our Nation will keep repeating these same mistakes.
  Let us be clear on the nature of the Libyan economy: 95 percent of 
its exports are oil; 80 percent of its government revenue derives from 
oil sales. Oil represents 25 percent of Libya's GDP and its most 
important industry. And Libya is Africa's third largest oil producer.
  The major powers involved in this military operation have vast 
pecuniary interests at stake through the multinational oil corporations 
that operate in Libya, whether it is Italy, from which operations are 
being staged, and which gets 22 percent of its oil from Libyan 
operations through firms like Eni and Repsol, or Canada, whose NATO 
General is leading operations, while Canada's second largest 
corporation, Suncor Energy, has major oil operations in Libya.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 
seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. An article I am submitting for the Record reports that 
``Seif al-Island Qadhafi, the son of Colonel Qadhafi, warned that in 
the event of a civil war, Libya's oil wealth would be burned.''
  One can see why the global powers took note. In fact, China lifted 
55,000 of its oil workers out of Libya.
  History will judge whether these resource wars and selective dictator 
deposals are justifiable. But the answer for America is to invest here 
at home and to restore America's energy independence and to extricate 
ourselves from all these foreign oil involvements.

                                                   March 22, 2011.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: According to information available 
     from public sources, the United States participated, and 
     perhaps has led, military operations against the government 
     of Libya. Press reports indicate U.S. military engagement 
     began at 16:53 GMT March 19, 2011 bombing commenced on 
     targets including surface to air systems and other air 
     defense infrastructure.
       It appears four days of U.S. air and naval strikes inside 
     Libya have destroyed strategic communications facilities, the 
     military intelligence headquarters, and air defense systems. 
     It is unclear how many lives, civilian and military, have 
     been lost, or saved, in these Libyan operations.
       Please provide a detailed description of the coalition of 
     forces involved in these operations in which the U. S. has 
     participated, its command and decision-making structure, and 
     from the planning stage to execution.
       Further, under which accounts of the U.S. Departments of 
     Defense and State are these operations being funded? What 
     level of funding does the United States expect to use in the 
     operations in Libya?
       Thank you for your reply.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marcy Kaptur,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


                       CIA World Fact Book--Libya


                  www.cia.gov (Accessed June 24, 2011)

       Economy--overview:
       The Libyan economy depends primarily upon revenues from the 
     oil sector, which contribute about 95% of export earnings, 
     25% of GDP, and 80% of government revenue. The weakness in 
     world hydrocarbon prices in 2009 reduced Libyan government 
     tax income and constrained economic growth. Substantial 
     revenues from the energy sector coupled with a small 
     population give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in 
     Africa, but little of this income flows down to the lower 
     orders of society. Libyan officials in the past five years 
     have made progress on economic reforms as part of a broader 
     campaign to reintegrate the country into the international 
     fold. This effort picked up steam after UN sanctions were 
     lifted in September 2003 and as Libya announced in December 
     2003 that it would abandon programs to build weapons of mass 
     destruction. The process of lifting US unilateral sanctions 
     began in the spring of 2004; all sanctions were removed by 
     June 2006, helping Libya attract greater foreign direct 
     investment, especially in the energy sector. Libyan oil and 
     gas licensing rounds continue to draw high international 
     interest; the National Oil Corporation (NOC) set a goal of 
     nearly doubling oil production to 3 million bbl/day by 2012. 
     In November 2009, the NOC announced that that target may slip 
     to as late as 2017. Libya faces a long road ahead in 
     liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial 
     steps--including applying for WTO membership, reducing some 
     subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization--are laying 
     the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based 
     economy. The non-oil manufacturing and construction sectors, 
     which account for more than 20% of GDP, have expanded from 
     processing mostly agricultural products to include the 
     production of petrochemicals, iron, steel, and aluminum. 
     Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit 
     agricultural output, and Libya imports about 75% of its food. 
     Libya's primary agricultural water source remains the Great 
     Manmade River Project, but significant resources are being 
     invested in desalinization research to meet growing water 
     demands.
                                  ____


                      PROVEN RESERVES OF THE MAJOR OIL-PRODUCING COUNTRIES, AS OF END 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Proven reserves (billion     Percentage of world
               Major producer (in rank order)                         barrels)                    total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Saudi Arabia.............................................                    261.8                      25.0
2. Iraq.....................................................                    112.5                      10.7
3. United Arab Emirates.....................................                     97.8                       9.3
4. Kuwait...................................................                     96.5                       9.1
5. Iran.....................................................                     89.7                       8.6
6. Venezuela................................................                     77.8                       7.4
7. Russian Federation and Caspian Sea states................                     77.1                       7.4
8. United States............................................                     30.4                       2.9
9. Libya....................................................                     29.5                       2.8
10. Nigeria.................................................                     24.0                       2.3
11. China...................................................                     18.3                       1.7
12. North Sea (Norway, U.K. Denmark)........................                     16.3                       1.6
13. Qatar...................................................                     15.2                       1.5
14. Mexico..................................................                     12.6                       1.2
All others..................................................                     90.2                       8.6
    World total.............................................                   1047.7                     100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy (London: BP, June 2003), p. 4.

                     Suncor Response, March 3, 2011

            Suncor's Operations in Libya--Brief Backgrounder

       Update: French translation added at 3:08 p.m. EST on March 
     3, 2011
       Suncor's Libyan assets were acquired in the company's 2009 
     merger with Petro-Canada which, in turn, assumed interests in 
     Libya through the acquisition of the German energy company, 
     Veba Oil, in 2002. In 2007 and 2008, these interests were 
     converted to ``Exploration and Production Sharing 
     Agreements'' (or EPSAs).
       Operations under the EPSAs include exploration in the Sirte 
     basin operated by Suncor and the redevelopment of other 
     existing Libyan oilfields, operated by a joint venture 
     company in which Suncor is a partner. To date, Suncor has 
     invested approximately $1.4 billion in its Libyan operations, 
     including an initial US$500 million, representing 50% of the 
     agreed price to buy into assets and development plans under 
     the EPSAs.
       Suncor's working interest share of production from Libyan 
     operations was 34,700 barrels per day in 2010, representing 
     less than 6% of Suncor's total production and approximately 
     2% of Libya's national oil production.


           Breve description des activites de Suncor en Libye

       Suncor a acquis ses actifs en Libye lors de la fusion avec 
     Petro-Canada en 2009, qui a son tour, avait obtenu des 
     participations en Libye en faisant l'acquisition de la 
     societe energetique allemande Veba Oil en 2002. En 2007 et 
     2008, ces participations ont ete converties en <> (ou CEPP).
       Les activites convenues en vertu des CEPP comprennent 
     l'exploration du bassin Syrte exploite par Suncor et la 
     remise en valeur d'autres champs petroliferes existants en 
     Libye, exploites par une coentreprise dans laquelle Suncor 
     est partenaire. A ce jour, Suncor a investi environ 1,4 
     milliard $ dans ses activites en Libye, incluant une somme 
     initiale de 500 millions $ US qui represente 50% du prix 
     convenu d'investissement dans les actifs et les plans de 
     developpement en vertu des CEPP.
       La quote-part de la participation directe de Suncor dans 
     les activites en Libye etait de 34 700 barils par jour en 
     2010, ce qui represente moins de 6% de la production totale 
     de Suncor et environ 2% de la production petroliere nationale 
     en Libye.

[[Page 10033]]

     
                                  ____
                     [From IBNLive, Mar. 21, 2011]

             Libya Says May Give Oil Deals to China, India

       Tripoli.--Libya is considering offering oil block contracts 
     directly to China, India and other nations it sees as friends 
     in its month-long conflict with rebels, Libya's top oil 
     official said on Saturday.
       Oil companies have pulled out staff and shut operations in 
     the country, formerly Africa's third-largest producer, due to 
     the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's rule, leading to a 
     sharp reduction in output.
       National Oil Corporation Chairman Shukri Ghanem, speaking 
     about future projects, said Libya was considering awarding 
     contracts directly to new partners instead of using its more 
     traditional open bidding process.
       ``We will be looking at giving direct block contracts to 
     countries ready to come and work in the country, because we 
     want to increase production,'' he said.
       He said Libya would look into the possibility of working 
     closer with partners such as India, China, Brazil and others 
     in the future but gave no details.
       Ghanem said, however, that the government would honour all 
     existing contracts with Western firms and called on foreign 
     workers to return to help restore output.
       ``It's not our intention to violate any of these 
     agreements,'' he told reporters in Tripoli.
       ``Of course, as you know, production has declined 
     drastically because of the dramatic events,'' he added.
       He said crude production had fallen to less than 400,000 
     barrels per day from 1.6 million before the crisis. He warned 
     that oil exports might halt altogether if output is not 
     restored.
       ``We will be able to restore most fields but we need the 
     foreign workforce to come back . . . We call on them to send 
     back their workers,'' he said.
       Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has taken a tougher stance on 
     Western oil companies. He said earlier this month that 
     Germany was the only Western power that had a chance of doing 
     business with Libyan oil in the future.
                                  ____


                            [Feb. 24, 2011]

          China's Oil Projects, Workers, Under Attack in Libya

       China rushed to evacuate thousands of workers from Libya on 
     Thursday, after CNPC and other Chinese firms were attacked in 
     the wave of unrest sweeping the country.
       Officials say 30,000 Chinese are in the country and the 
     scramble to evacuate them--in what may be the country's 
     largest overseas evacuation ever--is posing a new foreign 
     policy dilemma for China, which has for decades supported the 
     Gaddafi regime.
       CNPC, China's largest oil and gas producer, said on 
     Thursday that its facilities had been attacked and that CNPC 
     employees were being evacuated back to Beijing. The statement 
     is the first confirmation of attacks on oil companies, after 
     oil majors such as Eni of Italy and Repsol YPF shut down 
     their Libyan operations earlier this week.
       The violence in Libya poses a new test for China's foreign 
     policy in the region, which has centred around the concept of 
     non-interference. That policy has become increasingly 
     difficult to maintain as China's commercial engagement with 
     Africa deepens and Chinese workers decamp by the thousands to 
     build infrastructure projects on the continent.
       Ma Zhaoxu, Foreign Ministry spokesman, acknowledged that 
     some Chinese companies in Libya ``had their local camp sites 
     raided by gangsters and some people got hurt.''
       One Chinese railway worker painted a vivid picture of those 
     attacks in his microblog posts on Chinese website Sina. 
     Raiders set fire to equipment and cars and injured Chinese 
     workers in an attack on his work camp on Monday, said the 
     blogger known as ``Happy Xufeng,'' posting pictures of the 
     inferno as well as desperate calls for help.
       ``We are in great danger,'' he wrote on Monday night, 
     describing a group of more than 500 Chinese workers who 
     lacked basic supplies. ``Chinese companies in Libya are in a 
     state of emergency, our projects are being raided and 
     communications are down.'' By Wednesday the blogger, whose 
     internet records indicated he was an employee of China 
     Railway 11th Bureau, reported that he and his colleagues were 
     being evacuated to safety.
       In an unusual statement on Tuesday, China's President Hu 
     Jintao ordered government workers to ``spare no efforts to 
     ensure the safety of life and properties of Chinese citizens 
     in Libya.'' China has dispatched charter flights, COSCO 
     transport ships and Chinese fishing boats to travel toward 
     Libya. Hired buses will also stand ready to enter Libya to 
     help with the evacuation if necessary, the foreign ministry 
     said.
       There have already been signs of resentment in Libya at 
     China's growing economic clout in the region. At the end of 
     2009, Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa said in an interview: 
     ``When we look at the reality on the ground we find that 
     there is something akin to a Chinese invasion of the African 
     continent. This is something that brings to mind the effects 
     that colonialism had on the African continent.''
       The forced evacuation of such a large group of overseas 
     Chinese has exposed one of the new vulnerabilities of China's 
     foreign policy as its interests expand rapidly around the 
     globe.
       There are now tens of thousands of Chinese migrants working 
     in potentially volatile places such as Sudan, Congo, Burma 
     and Pakistan. Chinese diplomats worry that high-profile cases 
     of kidnapping or violence towards Chinese workers overseas 
     could provoke nationalist reactions at home and push the 
     government, which prides itself on a policy of non-
     intervention, to become much more involved in the domestic 
     political affairs of crisis-ridden countries.
       To the intense discomfort of Beijing, a defiant Colonel 
     Muammer Gadaffi has used the example of China's violent 
     crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to 
     justify his own use of military force against domestic 
     opponents. ``The unity of China was more important than those 
     people on Tiananmen Square,'' he said earlier this week.
       The evacuations of oil companies have caused Libya's oil 
     output to fall by half, sending oil prices higher amid global 
     fears that unrest in the Middle East will lead to shortages.
       News of the attack on CNPC will heighten concerns among oil 
     industry executives that the turmoil in Libya may lead to 
     widespread sabotage of oil facilities and that it would take 
     many months or even years to return the country to full 
     production capacity, even if a semblance of peace returns.
       In a speech earlier this week, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, the 
     son of Col Gaddafi, warned that in the event of a civil war, 
     Libya's oil wealth would be ``burned''.
       Oil experts in Beijing have said that unrest across the 
     Middle East is likely to prompt Chinese authorities to 
     accelerate oil purchases in an effort to fill reserves, a 
     move that would put further pressure on global supplies of 
     crude.
       ``Recent events made them very nervous and they believe the 
     oil price may be on an upward trend, so better to buy sooner 
     rather than later,'' said K F Yan, director of IHS Cera in 
     Bejing. ``With or without events in the Middle East, China 
     needs to refill the tanks after depleting supplies at the end 
     of 2010.''
       China's trade with Libya centres mainly on oil, but the 
     $6.6bn in bilateral trade also includes companies in a wide 
     range of other businesses, thanks in part to China never 
     having imposed sanctions on the Gaddafi regime. Chinese rail 
     companies have signed lucrative railway contracts with Libya, 
     agreeing in 2008 to build a rail line between Tripoli and 
     Sirte for $1.7bn, according to reports.


               China's Other Problem with Protests Abroad

       Talk of a ``Jasmine Revolution'' online and a subsequent 
     stepping up of censorship by Beijing authorities this week 
     has helped thrust the Internet--microblogging in particular--
     to the center of the conversation around how China's 
     government manages problems at home. But as the upheaval in 
     Libya grows increasingly violent, microblogs are also serving 
     to highlight a challenge China faces abroad: The presence of 
     tens of thousands of Chinese nationals, many of them workers 
     for state-owned enterprises, living in potential conflict 
     zones in Africa and elsewhere.
       On Tuesday morning Beijing time, a person claiming to be 
     one of those expatriates, an employee of a Chinese company in 
     Libya, took to Sina Weibo, China's most active microblogging 
     service, to send out a plea for help.
       ``Urgent situation Libya has lost control, the army has 
     moved suppress demonstrators, countless numbers of dead and 
     wounded,'' read the hastily punctuated Chinese-language 
     message, posted on an account with the name Happy Xu Feng. 
     ``Communication is completely cut off. Right now it's middle 
     of the night I used a satellite to leave a message, calling 
     on the government to send a plane to rescue us. Urgent''
       It's not clear how the user was posting to Sina Weibo 
     despite communications being down, but several hours later, 
     the user posted another message saying a number of the 
     company's compounds had been trashed. That was followed by 
     photos of a construction vehicle and a building in flames 
     along with another urgent call for help:
       ``The UK, France and South Korea are preparing to send over 
     planes. How come there's still no movement from our 
     government? A lot of Chinese brothers are embroiled in fights 
     with gangsters.''
       It's not clear which company Happy Xu Feng is working for 
     and is almost impossible to confirm details of the attack 
     described in the posts. State media reported that ``armed 
     gangsters'' looted a Chinese-operated construction site in 
     the eastern city of Agedabia, forcing nearly a thousand 
     Chinese workers to abandon their living quarters. However, 
     that attack reportedly took place on Sunday, a day before the 
     attacks described by Happy Xu Feng.
       The messages were forwarded thousands of times and 
     attracted hundreds of comments urging the government to move 
     quickly.
       Xinhua reported Tuesday night that China's State Council 
     had set up a ``special headquarters'' to coordinate efforts 
     to evacuate Chinese nationals from Libya. The

[[Page 10034]]

     headquarters had decided to dispatch chartered airplanes, as 
     well as fishing boats and cargo ships, the report said, 
     adding that Chinese president Hu Jintao and premier Wen 
     Jiabao had jointly ordered ``all-out efforts to ensure life 
     and property safety of Chinese nationals in Libya.'' News of 
     Messrs. Hu and Wen's orders, including the ``all-out'' 
     modifier, was repeated multiple times on CCTV's main news 
     broadcast Tuesday night, a sign of the sensitivity 
     surrounding the effort.
       Indeed, for Chinese leaders confronting the protests in 
     Libya, Egypt and elsewhere, public criticism over their 
     ability to protect Chinese citizens abroad is arguably as big 
     a concern as the possibility the unrest will somehow spread 
     to China. While regular Chinese people seem to have little 
     interest in emulating protestors in North Africa (whether 
     because censorship has kept them in the dark or because 
     they're just not that keen on revolution), they are 
     interested in having a government strong and competent enough 
     to look after them when they're overseas.
       Beijing came under considerable public pressure over its 
     handling of the killing of Hong Kong tourists who had been 
     taken hostage in Manila last August. More recently, leaders 
     faced criticism for sending too few planes to evacuate 
     Chinese citizens from Cairo after protests erupted there in 
     late January. With Libya, too, the pressure is on.
       ``I just called the number 86-10-6596114 listed on the 
     website of Ministry of Foreign affairs and a woman answered, 
     sounding as if she's just woken up,'' one user wrote in a 
     comment on Happy Xu Feng's Sina Weibo feed. ``As soon as the 
     word `Libya' left my mouth, she said `the leaders have all 
     gone home, we'll deal with it tomorrow.'''
       Wrote another: ``Government, the time has come to test 
     whether you rule for the people.''
       That test is not likely to be easy. According to state 
     media, there are more than 30,000 Chinese living in Libya.
                                  ____


                    China in Africa: The Real Story

                            [Feb. 22, 2011]

                       (By The Associated Press)

       New York.--Europe gets over 85 percent of Libya's crude 
     exports. The rest goes to Asia, Australia and the U.S. Here's 
     a breakdown of how much oil various countries import from 
     Libya (in barrels per day) and the percentage of a country's 
     total crude imports supplied by Libya.
       --Italy: 376,000 (22 percent)
       --France: 205,000 (16 percent)
       --China: 150,000 (3 percent)
       --Germany: 144,000 (8 percent)
       --Spain: 136,000 (12 percent)
       --United Kingdom: 95,000 (9 percent)
       --Greece: 63,000 (15 percent)
       --United States: 51,000 (0.5 percent)
       --Austria: 31,000 (21 percent)
       --Netherlands: 31,000 (2 percent)
       --Portugal: 27,000 (11 percent)
       --Switzerland: 17,000 (19 percent)
       --Ireland: 14,000 (23 percent)
       --Australia: 11,000 (2 percent)
       (Source: International Energy Agency 2010 statistics)
                                  ____


                  [From YvesEngler.com, Mar. 29, 2011]

                       Why Canada Attacked Libya

                            (By Yves Engler)

       Would Stephen Harper attack Libya simply to justify 
     spending tens of billions of dollars on F-35 fighter jets? 
     Perhaps. But, add on doing it for major Canadian investors, 
     reinforcing his ``principled'' foreign policy rhetoric and 
     reasserting western control over a region in flux, and you 
     pretty much have the range of reasons why a half dozen CF-
     18s, four other military aircraft and naval frigate are 
     currently engaged in combat 10,000 km away from Canadian 
     soil.
       Over the past few months the Conservative's plan to buy 65 
     F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets has become a serious political 
     headache. A recent poll showed 68 per cent of Canadians--
     including a majority of Conservative supporters--agreed that 
     ``now is not a good time'' to spend between $16 and $29 
     billion on these controversial single-engine jets. So, 
     sending Canadian military aircraft to enforce a UN ``no-fly 
     zone'' in Libya provides an opportunity to soften opposition 
     to the F-35 purchase, an issue bound to be a hot topic in the 
     election campaign that formally began Saturday. Most critics 
     of the F-35 purchase--from the NDP's Michael Byers to Project 
     Ploughshares Ernie Regehr to Liberal foreign affairs critic 
     Bob Rae--support the ``humanitarian'' mission in Libya. With 
     these and other liberal interventionists supporting a bombing 
     campaign in North Africa, Harper can more easily justify 
     spending nearly $1,000 per Canadian on the best fighter jets 
     money can buy. (Quebec housing group, FRAPRU, claims the cost 
     of a single F-35 equals 6,400 social housing units.)
       Conveniently, the right-wing press has already begun to 
     connect the dots in support of the Harper government. An 
     Ottawa Citizen headline read, ``Libya shows why Canada needs 
     jets,'' while a Sun Media chain commentary explained, 
     ``enforcing a `no-fly' zone to shut down a dictator is an 
     expeditionary air operation. Is that something Canadians want 
     to be able to do in the future? If yes, you need an F-35, 
     expensive or not.''
       Over the past five years, the Conservatives have further 
     militarized Canadian foreign policy. Military spending is at 
     its highest level since World War II--the Harper government 
     expanded Canada's role in the occupation of Afghanistan, 
     claimed that Russia is planning to attack and sent 2,000 
     troops to police Haitians after a devastating earthquake.
       The Conservatives draw significant support from the 
     military as well as its associated companies and culture. To 
     get us in the fighting spirit, for instance, the Canadian 
     Forces released onboard video footage of a CF-18 destroying a 
     ground target in Libya.
       But there is more to it than pleasing the Great White 
     North's version of the military-industrial complex. On March 
     21, The Financial Times reported that western oil companies 
     were worried that if Gaddafi defeated the rebels in the east 
     of Libya he would nationalize their operations out of anger 
     at the west's duplicity. Presumably, this includes Suncor, 
     Canada's second largest corporation, which signed a multi-
     billion dollar 30-year oil concession with Libya in 2008.
       Home to the second largest amount of Canadian investment in 
     Africa, instability in Libya has put a couple billion dollars 
     worth of this country's corporate investment in jeopardy. Dru 
     Oja Jay, editor of the Dominion and a candidate for the 
     Mountain Equipment Co-op Board of Directors, notes ``Canadian 
     investors are legitimately worried about what's going to 
     happen to the $1 billion signing bonus Suncor paid out to the 
     Libyan government, or whether SNC-Lavalin is going to recoup 
     its investments in the country, which is home to 10 per cent 
     of its workforce.'' And these are some of this country's most 
     powerful corporations. Embassymagazine includes both Suncor 
     and SNC-Lavalin's CEOs among the nine most influential 
     business executives in determining Canadian foreign policy.
       Would a victorious Gaddafi have moved against Canadian 
     companies? Even if he didn't, with all the bad press SNC and 
     Suncor have received could they continue in Libya without 
     regime change? Finally, will the rebels dependence on the 
     west lead to better contract terms?
       Unlike Egypt or Tunisia, the Conservatives denounced 
     Gaddafi's repression at the beginning of the Libyan uprising. 
     This is partly because Gaddafi has never been on great terms 
     with much of the West, even if there have been warmer 
     relations in recent years. Also, the Conservatives were 
     widely derided for supporting Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and (to a 
     lesser extent) Ben-Ali in Tunisia to the bitter end. So Libya 
     gave Harper an opportunity to re-affirm his ``principled'' 
     foreign policy rhetoric.
       Beyond wanting to appear on the side of human rights and 
     democracy, another element motivating the military 
     intervention in Libya is the desire to influence the 
     revolutions in bordering states Tunisia and Egypt, which are 
     still in flux. Controlling Libya gives the West another point 
     of leverage over developments in those countries. Bombing 
     Libya tells democratic forces in the region that the west is 
     prepared to use force to assert itself (as does tacit support 
     for the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain).
       Recent developments in Libya are a reminder that if you 
     give the western decision-makers an interventionist inch they 
     take an imperial mile. In principle trying to stop Gaddafi 
     from massacring people in eastern Libya is a good thing. But, 
     the ``no-fly zone'' immediately became a license to bomb 
     Libyan tanks, Gaddafi's compound and other targets in 
     coordination with rebel attacks. On March 22, Foreign Affairs 
     Minister Lawrence Cannon claimed the UN resolution allowed 
     for ``boots on the ground.''
       Beyond the inevitable death and destruction in Libya, the 
     security council resolution further undermines state 
     sovereignty, which provides the weakest states with some 
     protection from the most powerful. This is the main reason 
     why many Latin American and African countries have opposed 
     the intervention.
       Finally, let's put the current moral outrage in 
     perspective. A little over two years ago Israel launched a 
     22-day onslaught against Gaza that left some 1,400 people, 
     mostly civilians, dead. There, the power imbalance between 
     the two sides was much greater and the aggrieved population 
     had been under the boot of the attacking force for as long as 
     Gaddafi has ruled. Yet there was no talk of imposing a no-fly 
     zone over Gaza. In fact, the Harper government cheered Israel 
     on.

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
  Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Rooney. I appreciate the time, and also 
your advancing this resolution.
  The President has not made the case for committing our military to 
the conflict in Libya. The President claims that these military actions 
do not constitute hostilities. However, the American people know 
otherwise.
  The President is engaged in military action against Libya and the 
Qadhafi regime without congressional approval. In addition to ignoring 
Congress, many believe that the President has exceeded

[[Page 10035]]

the scope of the U.N. Security Council resolution imposing an embargo, 
a no-fly zone, and authorizing civil protection of the Libyan people.
  The President has told us who we're against: Qadhafi. But he cannot 
tell us who we are for. Secretary Gates has indicated that we know 
little about the opposition or rebels. We do not know their 
geopolitical view towards their neighbors or us. We do not know their 
commitment to domestic diversity. Are we going to have atrocities?
  We do not know their ideology, or their preferred form of government, 
or if they have a commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, an issue that is incredibly important in the area of 
Libya.
  The President has used the United Nations' approval of civil 
protection to wage an all-out war on Qadhafi, without congressional 
approval or American support.
  U.S. Admiral Locklear, in charge of the NATO operations against 
Libya, recently stated that ground troops would be needed to provide 
stability in Libya once the Qadhafi regime falls. And yet the President 
has not provided us any information about what a post-Qadhafi Libya 
will look like or what will be our involvement. He is committing us to 
an extended military action; and for Congress to be relevant, the 
voices of this body need to be heard.
  I support the passage of Mr. Rooney's resolution limiting the use of 
funds appropriated in the DOD in support of U.S. activities in Libya 
unless otherwise authorized by law. This passage of this resolution is 
an important step to limit the role of the U.S. military.
  I urge passage of H.R. 2278.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, if this resolution passes, and we weaken 
NATO's mission, Qadhafi may very well prevail. His forces will then 
kill, rape, and torture all those Libyans who opposed him, as he has 
already tried to do. Qadhafi has reportedly kidnapped thousands of 
people, including young students to serve as human shields and march at 
the vanguard of his forces. If any of his own soldiers refuse to gun 
down unarmed innocent civilians, they're shot immediately.
  Once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those 
NATO and Middle Eastern nations that attacked him and seek revenge. 
Remember, this is a man who is already responsible for the deaths of 
189 innocent passengers on Pan Am 103.
  Let's face it. This is not about whether the Obama administration has 
been thorough enough in explaining the Libya rationale to Congress. 
Members understand why the President intervened. We can read. We can 
think; we can decide.
  The real question is, will we politicize this effort in the same way 
that the Republican Congress politicized President Clinton's successful 
intervention in a NATO-led mission in Bosnia 15 years ago? The limited 
action we're taking to support the NATO mission in Libya does not rise 
to a level of conflict meant to be governed by the War Powers 
resolution. Presidents of both parties have initiated similar actions 
in Grenada, Panama, Somali, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosova.
  What this really is about, the transcendent purpose of this mission 
is to seize an opportunity to show the world, particularly the young 
majority of the Arab and Muslim world who are thirsting for economic 
and political freedoms, that we are on their side. We have the 
opportunity to show the Arab world and every nation on Earth who we are 
as a people. It shouldn't matter who's in the White House. We should be 
united in the cause of democracy. We should debate; but when the debate 
is over, politics should take a back seat to policy.
  The legacy of America is that we will fight tyranny and defend 
innocent people as best and as forcefully as we can, in good economic 
times and bad.
  This debate should come to an end. We know exactly what's at stake. 
If Qadhafi is allowed to violently suppress the uprising in Libya, it 
will mean many more years of despotic rule. Isolated by his repulsive 
acts of repression and buoyed by oil wealth, he'd have nothing to lose 
by aiding violent subversive groups in neighboring countries, including 
those with vulnerable fledgling democracies like Tunisia and Egypt. 
That would not only be a defeat for democracy in the region; it would 
be a death blow for NATO, the most important military alliance the 
world has yet achieved.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. Imagine if, just 2 weeks after Secretary Gates excoriated 
some of our NATO allies for skimping on their commitments to the global 
security infrastructure that is a key to our economic system and the 
open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, 
imagine if now we turned our backs on NATO. What a global 
embarrassment.
  Now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator to 
give democracy an opportunity in a part of the world that has not 
experienced it, a part of the world which is vital to America's 
security.
  That's why I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Rooney's resolution.
  Mr. 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 here at home 
trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the 
plain language of the United States Constitution, which is the supreme 
rule of law in our land.
  I've heard several times now an argument that is about politics. 
Well, in fairness, politics is to Congress like wet is to water. We 
cannot avoid that.
  But this issue is really one of substance, and the United States 
Constitution clearly states that the President's power as Commander in 
Chief to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities may be exercised only 
pursuant to three circumstances: first, a declaration of war; secondly, 
a specific statutory authorization; and, number three, a national 
emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories. 
And none of those circumstances is in evidence here today.
  So despite my great admiration and respect for our President, a 
lawful premise for this Libyan operation does not exist.
  I've also heard the argument that we have to join with our 
international neighbors, that we can't desert them. Well, as a matter 
of fact, I've been to Iraq now 14 times. I've been to Afghanistan 10 
times. When we first went into Afghanistan, when I first went over 
there after hostilities started, it used to be 50 percent United States 
and 50 percent the rest of the world. Now when I go, it's about 75 
percent the U.S. and 25 percent the rest of the world. So they have 
migrated out of Afghanistan. At the same time, they're asking us to 
pick up the load in Libya.

                              {time}  1250

  Also on my trips, I don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of 
duty anymore. When I meet our kids, they're on their third, fourth, 
fifth tour of duty. We're stretched very thin. Our military families 
are stretched very thin. I think we should allow our international 
neighbors to pick up this load.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Rooney 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered 
by Mr. Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I 
believe this action would be unwise, and that it could materially harm 
our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require 
support in the future. It would also undermine the

[[Page 10036]]

worldwide effort to protect the people of Libya.
  Now in this amendment, there are exceptions: search and rescue; 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and 
operational planning. I asked the majority if they would put in 
suppression, because you can't conduct these other missions without 
suppression, and if we don't have the ability to suppress enemy air 
defenses, the allies will not be able to continue the bombing campaign. 
So all of these things that the gentleman says he wants to do and have 
exceptions for will be undermined by not having suppression.
  Today's F-18 Growlers go in on these missions and they suppress the 
enemy radars so that the bombing can continue. So I think this is 
fatally flawed because of the lack of suppression, and I feel that we 
now have to vote against this because of that fact. I tried to offer 
this as an amendment, but I was told that they weren't interested.
  I just hope you understand that you are undermining this mission and 
you are undermining NATO. This deserves to be defeated.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from New York, Colonel Gibson.
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time 
to speak today.
  I've been opposed to this operation in Libya from the very start. In 
terms of national security priorities, we should be focusing on rapidly 
and successfully completing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
reorganizing the national security establishment to more effectively 
wage counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, and resetting the 
DOD to defend our cherished way of life in a manner consistent for a 
Republic, not an Empire. Going forward, we need to learn from these 
experiences and exercise more discipline; not getting involved in 
operations like Libya where vital national security interests are not 
present.
  We should cease our involvement in Libya immediately. I'm supporting 
this resolution to cut off funds for combat operations. I view this as 
a good start, but I want to be clear: I will not be satisfied until all 
funds are cut off for this operation, no exceptions.
  Then we need to revise the War Powers Act to ensure we never again 
end up with a President taking this country to war without proper 
authorization. We need to rediscover the Founders' intent on this 
critical issue, and I've introduced legislation, the War Powers Reform 
Act, to make it so. The War Powers Reform Act clarifies when the 
President may deploy forces into hostilities or imminent threat of 
hostilities: one, declaration of war; two, specific statutory 
authorization; or three, a national emergency created by an attack on 
the United States or an imminent threat of an attack on our country. If 
none of these circumstances are met, the President must first come to 
Congress to obtain authorization before deploying forces. The key 
change in the War Powers Reform Act is that without prior 
authorization, the President may not obligate or expend funds to deploy 
troops into combat.
  Congress must act to restore constitutional balance and the voice of 
the American people. We need to reform the War Powers Act. I urge my 
colleagues to support both this bill and Mr. Rooney's resolution on 
Libya that we are voting on today.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  America is a beacon of light around the world. At a time when many 
were cowering in their house wondering if this genocide that Qadhafi 
was bringing to their doorstep would come tomorrow or the next day, 
American fighters came in and pressed Qadhafi's forces back and pushed 
him back into Tripoli.
  America has stood for the side of freedom in this Arab Spring. 
America has stood for people that don't have a voice for themselves. 
Don't let a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive 
branch result in us pulling the rug out from standing up for freedom. 
America has a responsibility to finish this through, to stand with our 
allies.
  To leave now means Qadhafi wins, period. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
resolution.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. It's 
well-intentioned, without question. It's meant to limit our involvement 
in Libya, it's meant to support our allies, and it's meant to rein in a 
President who in my opinion is conducting an illegal and certainly 
unauthorized war.
  It does both too little and too much. It does too little, frankly, 
because even after it's passed, the President will continue essentially 
to be able to operate as he's been operating for several weeks. And it 
does too much because it gets us into a situation where we effectively 
micromanage the military by literally listing what missions they should 
take.
  The resolution neither holds the President accountable nor ends our 
involvement in Libya, and it essentially leaves things exactly where 
they are. Congress should reassert its constitutional authority, Mr. 
Speaker, by either authorizing the use of military force or ending it. 
This resolution avoids either course. It postpones a decision. In doing 
so, in my view, it erodes the constitutional war-making authority of 
Congress and enhances an executive branch that is already overreaching. 
We will appear to do something and we will actually do nothing.
  For that reason, I reluctantly urge the rejection of the resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States 
went to the United Nations Security Council to urge intervention in the 
Libyan civil war, he frankly missed a stop. He should have come here 
first, and this Congress should have debated the wisdom or lack thereof 
of that effort. Knowing what I know about this, had that debate taken 
place here, I would be one who would have voted against authorizing the 
use of force here because I do not believe we have a vital national 
security interest in the Libyan civil war.
  I am going to oppose this resolution, however, because I think that 
two constitutional wrongs do not make a right. Again, I believe the 
President should have come here and sought the authorization of this 
Congress before he initiated these hostilities, and they are 
hostilities. But when we have people at risk, when we have lives on the 
line, I think this resolution raises a practical and a constitutional 
problem. The practical problem, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) alluded to a few minutes ago, and I can think of another 
variation. If a NATO ally is sending people into Libya on an 
intelligence-gathering function and asks us to provide air cover for 
that function, is that an intelligence operation or isn't it? I don't 
know, there's a good argument on either side, but it's an adjudication 
that I don't think a U.S. commander in the field ought to have to make. 
I think it's a practical confusion that does not serve us well when 
people are at risk.
  Then, secondly, just as the President has the obligation, I believe, 
to seek approval of this body and the other one before he initiates 
hostilities, he also has the responsibility to conduct those affairs 
once they begin. Our role is to oversee and fund or not fund such 
activities, but it is not to interfere with them. I think this is an 
impractical interference; so I'm going to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 12 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague 
from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill defunds Libya unless authorized

[[Page 10037]]

specifically by law. If it passes, long before it's passed by the 
Senate, the President will come to us and ask for authorization, and I, 
for one, would want to grant limited, conditional authorization.
  Now we just rejected an authorization provision that was, in effect, 
all authority and no limitation--at least that's certainly how it would 
be interpreted by the White House legal counsel given how it was 
drafted. The House should consider real binding limits and conditions 
because democracy and rule of law for the people of Libya is important, 
but democracy and rule of law for the people of the United States is 
more important.
  There are those who regret that they cannot offer an amendment to 
this bill--yes, they can. The motion to recommit will be in order just 
as soon as we end debate.
  I know that we've had important resolutions from the Arab League, the 
U.N., and NATO. Those are not substitutes for Congress. The War Powers 
Act is the law of the land, and if we don't stand up for it now, when 
will we? And if this President won't obey it, what President will?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee and also a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what we have here are two 
essential arguments; one is more of an intramural argument between 
Congress and the White House, but it is a misplaced argument because 
there is no President that has come to this Congress for a declaration 
of war since World War II--and granted, we've been in seven or eight 
major conflicts. So this is much greater than this conflict between the 
White House and this Congress.
  Unfortunately, I believe that this measure is just an attempt to, 
rather in a strong way, get the attention of the President. It may be 
to chastise the President a bit. I think if you look at the Record 
there were communications here, but there is a larger profound message 
here. It's not a message that this is to send to the President. This is 
a bad-timed piece of legislation because it sends the wrong message to 
the world.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, we are the leaders of the free 
world. America is a great country, and our standing is at stake. And 
this move, this bill will pull the rug out from under NATO at precisely 
the time when we need to be sending a strong message of encouragement. 
The United States is in a support role here. So it is very important 
that we defeat this amendment and make sure that we send the right 
message to our allies, that we will not pull the rug out from under 
them.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to send a message to 
our allies. And I don't think we are pulling the rug out from under 
them. Look at these wealthy, populous nations of Western Europe. I 
believe it is a good thing to get rid of Qadhafi, but does America have 
to do everything? People say we're the indispensable nation. That's a 
terrible burden to impose on ourselves; we can't afford it, and it 
cannot be done effectively. Let's get people who can dispense with us.
  My friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, says, 
look, we have to do this because NATO can bomb but they can't suppress. 
What a great bunch of allies--they can bomb unarmed people, but if they 
shoot back, they got to come running to us.
  Yes, I want to send a message to NATO. Qadhafi is a bad guy. If 
England and France and Italy and Germany and Spain and the Netherlands 
and Scandinavia can't together muster the military force for this 
weakened, poor nation, then let's re-examine the value of these allies.
  In ``The King and I,'' he says, If the allies are weak, am I not best 
alone? Yes, I want to tell our allies that it's time for once for them 
to step up. This is not to protect Qadhafi; it's to say that America 
can no longer be asked to be the one that does everything, everywhere, 
every time. Our allies have to step up.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rarely speak on the House floor, and almost never have I ever come 
to the floor two times in one day to speak on this one issue. But this 
is my fourth trip to the floor today on this issue because I consider 
it so important and so serious.
  If I could rename this bill, I would call it ``a bill to authorize 
the use of force in Libya.'' That is what we're doing. We should not 
kid ourselves--we are authorizing the use of force. We are endorsing 
the Obama war in Libya.
  Some see this as weakening our presence over there, but there is no 
doubt, if you read it carefully, we are expanding and giving authority 
because of the exceptions. The exceptions include search and re-search, 
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, refueling, planning--
contract labor probably can still go in, the CIA is in there already, 
special forces. And paying for it: How can you do all that without 
paying for it? So we are there.
  This will be the first time the President will have received any 
information from the Congress that it's okay to pursue what we're 
doing. We're supposed to be sending the message that we're in charge of 
when we go to war and when we pay for this war. We're not just supposed 
to lie over and capitulate to what the President wants--as we have been 
for too many years.
  So there is no doubt that I think the proper vote here, the proper 
constitutional vote, the proper vote for the best of our national 
interests, the best vote for peace is to vote this resolution down just 
as we voted the previous resolution down. We should prohibit the use of 
funds.
  A lot of us complain on this House floor because of the way the 
President went to war--he didn't come here, he went to NATO. But this 
supports NATO. One of the arguments in favor of this bill is we have 
the exceptions, so we don't want to break ties and our allegiance to 
NATO. Well, that's what we're supposed to be doing, we're supposed to 
be reclaiming the sovereignty and the responsibilities here in the 
House. We are not supposed to roll over for NATO and the United 
Nations. We're supposed to stand up for this country.
  We are not supposed to go into war under these conditions. And under 
those circumstances, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Somebody said a while ago we ought to be supporting the Arab Spring 
because there are movements toward democracy over there. We went into 
Libya to help in a humanitarian effort and get rid of Muammar Qadhafi, 
but who are we supporting? Nobody at the White House has come down here 
and said we're supporting this group of people. We don't know if it's 
the Muslim Brotherhood, we don't know if it's al Qaeda--now we do know 
there are al Qaeda operatives that came from Afghanistan fighting with 
the rebels in Libya; are we supporting al Qaeda? Are we supporting the 
Muslim Brotherhood?
  The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has opened up the border--or the 
Government of Egypt, whatever that is right now--has opened up the 
border between Egypt and Gaza, which provides a mechanism for weapons 
to get into Gaza to fire on Israel.
  So before we start supporting a rebel movement and going after 
somebody like Qadhafi, we ought to find out who we're for. We're 
spending billions of dollars before this is over in a war where we 
don't even know who we're supporting, and it's in violation of the War 
Powers Act and the Constitution. This is something we should not be 
doing.
  The President should have come down here and made his case. He should 
have said what our goals are. He

[[Page 10038]]

should have said who we're supporting and why we're supporting them. We 
are in a war against terrorism. We may very well end up with terrorists 
controlling Libya and Egypt, and that is a tinderbox that we don't 
want. We get about 35 percent of our energy from that part of the 
world, and if all hell breaks loose because we've gone with the wrong 
guys, we've got a real problem in this country economically. And the 
President ought to be thinking about all that and making his case to 
the Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the War Powers Act 
before he does it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to cut off funding for combat in 
Libya. In doing so, it simply forbids what the Constitution already 
forbids--the waging of war without explicit congressional 
authorization. But then it specifically grants to the President what up 
until now he has completely lacked: congressional authority to engage 
in every conceivable belligerent act short of actually pulling the 
trigger.

                              {time}  1310

  Refueling bombers on their way to targets, identifying and selecting 
targets, guiding munitions to their targets, logistical support, 
operational planning--these are all acts of war in direct support of 
belligerents at war, and this bill authorizes them.
  The House has just considered whether to authorize war with Libya. It 
has specifically, categorically, and decisively rejected it. The 
President is now on notice that he is in direct defiance of Congress. 
That is the message we need to send today. Let's not enter a war 
through the back door, when we have already decided not to enter it 
through the front.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas, 
Judge Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is true, Qadhafi is a bad guy. He needs 
to go. But the problem is for those who say will this mean the end of 
the Bush doctrine, well, I don't know that this President has really 
been enforcing the Bush doctrine. But the problem is, as my friend Mr. 
Burton pointed out, we don't know who is going to replace Qadhafi.
  It is not in our national interest to help what may be another Iran, 
with Khomeini and Ahmadinejad coming to power, and especially when we 
are releasing oil at a time when that oil should be saved in case it 
all goes to blazes in the Middle East and we don't have any coming from 
there.
  Now, I am not crazy about the exceptions either--the search and 
rescue, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling 
and operational planning--because this administration is probably going 
to describe everything they do as falling into those exceptions. But it 
is a step in the right direction. And some have said, and I know their 
hearts and I know they mean well, we want to support our troops, and I 
don't like it when people say let's back out and let's cut funding when 
troops are in harm's way.
  I have talked to enough troops who want somebody in Washington to 
say, this is insane, don't get us involved, because they are good 
soldiers; and when they get their orders, they are going to salute and 
they are going to go follow through on the orders.
  We are the body that must step forward and say, Enough. Mr. 
President, we are not responsible to the Arab League, to NATO or to the 
U.N. We are responsible to the American people.
  So though I don't like the exceptions, I will vote for this. It is 
taking a step in the right direction.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  We just voted on a resolution on whether or not to authorize in 
Libya, and this House overwhelmingly voted ``no,'' no to authorizing 
that. I have been opposed to this action in Libya. I have not been 
persuaded that the U.S. has a vital interest there. And by the way, we 
were not attacked by Qadhafi.
  I spent 2 hours in a tent with Qadhafi in 2003. We were the first 
congressional delegation in over 38 years to be there. In fact, we were 
there because he was voluntarily giving up his nuclear arms. I will say 
that there probably are few dictators who are going to do that again 
after watching what is happening over there. He is a bloody dictator; 
but one of the things I learned, he hates al Qaeda.
  I also think that this action vividly demonstrates the weakness of 
NATO, quite frankly. It is a great organization. We appreciate their 
partnerships, of course. They are our allies. But it is an antiquated 
organization. The United States is paying 75 percent of the cost of 
NATO, and NATO can't even take out a two-bit dictator like Qadhafi. 
Why? Because we have enabled our allies, providing their defense for 
them for decades. And instead of spending money on their defense, as 
they said, 2 percent of their GDP, they are spending their money on 
their social programs; they are spending their money on lower corporate 
tax rates, et cetera.
  So I would say, yes, Qadhafi is a bloody dictator. He is a terrorist. 
He did not attack us. And by the way, let us remember who let the 
Lockerbie bomber out way early as well.
  We need to get out of Libya, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let me say that I am disappointed that we have reached this point 
here today. Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to come to this.
  Nearly 100 days ago, the President initiated a strike against Libya 
without consultation from the Congress and without prior explanation to 
the American people. Then, as now, we all supported the removal of the 
regime of Libya, a regime that was slaughtering and is slaughtering its 
own people. Yet rather than seek regime change from the start, the 
President chose to follow, not lead, and pursued a strictly 
humanitarian mission under the banner of the United Nations, with no 
plan for Colonel Qadhafi's removal.
  So at the outset, we asked some very straightforward questions for 
the President: Why isn't removing Qadhafi a part of this mission? What 
if he doesn't leave? Who are the rebels that we are there helping to 
fight? How long is this going to last and at what cost? And what does 
success look like? These were questions that the administration would 
not, or could not, answer.
  Under our Constitution, the Commander in Chief has the authority to 
take actions necessary to protect our national security. This is an 
authority which I and this House respect, but it does not free the 
President from accountability to the American people, to this Congress, 
or to the rule of law.
  Now, whatever your opinion of the War Powers resolution may be, the 
fact is it is the law of the land and simply cannot be ignored. So 3 
weeks ago, this House overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution 
asking the President to explain how this mission is consistent with our 
national security goals, to justify continuing this operation without 
authorization. He responded by telling us he didn't need Congress 
because there are no ``hostilities'' taking place in Libya. Well, we 
soon found out even his own lawyers don't buy that argument.
  Now, if the Commander in Chief is going to take our forces into war, 
he must take ownership of it. And if the President believes that 
missile strikes and drone operations taking place in Libya are 
critical, it is his responsibility to explain to the American people 
and to seek authorization from this Congress. Because the President has 
failed to do that, because he has failed to fulfill his obligations, we 
are here today.
  Now, make no mistake: I support the removal of the Libyan regime. I 
support the President's authority as Commander in Chief. But when the 
President chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I, as 
Speaker of this

[[Page 10039]]

House, will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature.
  This bill represents, I believe, a reasonable approach. By allowing 
our forces to continue playing a limited support role, it would not 
undermine our NATO partners. It would, however, prevent the President 
from carrying out any further hostilities without Congress' approval, 
and it would exercise Congress' constitutional power to provide some 
much-needed accountability.
  I believe this is a responsible approach, and I believe this House 
should support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House has made some very 
legitimate points, but then his conclusion is so contrary to the points 
he made. The proposition before us today, Mr. McClintock is right, it 
is an authorization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war, 
that by their own definition cannot possibly help us either achieve the 
humanitarian goal of this mission or achieve the goal, the true 
humanitarian goal of removing Qadhafi from power.
  We are authorizing intelligence-sharing, aerial refueling, 
operational planning, intelligence-gathering; but we are denying the 
only aspects of this operation that can allow us to achieve that goal--
the suppression of air defense systems and the utilization of drones 
with missiles to stop Qadhafi from resuming his effort to massacre his 
own people.
  I understand the argument. You don't buy my notions of our national 
security interests. You don't see the context of bringing this 
operation to a halt in terms of what it does to the stability of the 
democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia. You don't see any 
consequences in terms of Syria or the larger Middle East or the damage 
to alliance. I understand and accept that argument.
  But Mr. Rooney tries to have it both ways and in fact comes up with a 
proposal that ensures that the mission is allowed to continue, but by 
definition cannot achieve its goals.

                              {time}  1320

  It is the worst. It is not the reasonable proposal. It is the worst 
of all solutions. If you're going to authorize an operation through 
airpower and other methods, you don't exclude the only parts that can 
possibly achieve success. If you're against this operation, you stop 
the funding of the operation.
  Mr. Rooney and apparently a number of members of the majority want to 
have it both ways. We don't like Qadhafi so we want to do something. We 
don't want to do anything that could work, but we don't want to come 
out against the operation. But the fact is you're ending the operation 
if this were to become law, because our European friends have said very 
clearly that, Those parts of this operation that this amendment 
prohibits, those parts of the operation we cannot undertake if you are 
not doing it.
  So why not be straightforward? Why not do what a number of colleagues 
on the other side have called for: stop funding the operation. Don't 
try to have it both ways, ensure the operation's defeat and end the 
operation, while pretending to still be interested in seeing Qadhafi go 
and the operation succeed.
  I urge a ``no'' vote from anyone who cares about the consequences of 
what they vote on.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2278.
  My colleague has set forth a responsible plan that would effectively 
limit the United States' role in Libya. This bill would allow U.S. 
forces to continue to conduct search and rescue missions, aerial 
refueling, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and provide 
operational planning assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what NATO has told us would allow them to 
continue to carry out the mission. These are very critical functions. 
That is all that they have asked us to do as we move forward. And it 
helps the President be truthful in saying that we're not engaged in 
hostile actions.
  This bill would clearly end funding for all other military missions 
in Libya. Of particular concern to many Members is the United States' 
continued engagement in strike and suppression of enemy air defense 
missions. The President has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is not 
engaged in hostilities and that congressional authorization is not 
necessary to continue our role in this operation.
  I share with many of my colleagues the view that firing a missile at 
a target in a foreign nation does indeed constitute hostile action. 
This disagreement is at the root of the issue at hand. H.R. 2278 would 
put an end to that debate by explicitly defining the congressionally 
authorized scope of the U.S. military mission in Libya.
  The administration has yet to present Congress and the American 
people with a clear strategic objective for our involvement in Libya. 
Furthermore, to date we have not been informed of a specific end goal 
under which the U.S. military operations would cease. This threatens 
the effectiveness of our mission and can soon create an unjustifiable 
strain on our military while they remain engaged in two other theaters 
of operation critical to our national security interest.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
  Wouldn't you feel better if we could add, as a fifth item in this 
list of things, suppression of enemy air defenses? The reason I say 
that is I think we're going to have a difficult time doing any of these 
other missions unless we have suppression.
  I was just over there at Aviano and Sigonella, and we were told by 
the Navy that the allies do not have enough suppression to be able to 
continue to do these bombing missions without U.S. help. I think it 
would help if we could clarify that that is not somehow abandoned.
  Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, my good friend from Washington, there 
are a lot of things that would make me feel better. If we could go back 
and start this whole thing over, there are a lot of things that would 
make me feel better. But the President has said we're not engaged in 
hostilities. And I think we would agree that when we're firing 
missiles, when we are having missions with our fighter planes 
suppressing ground fire, I believe that would be--most of us agree that 
that is hostile.
  The NATO people, we met with the military from Great Britain. They 
told us what we have in here would allow them to continue successfully 
their missions.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. There are a number of arguments about this 
issue and arguments in favor of ending the mission in Libya. I think 
the Speaker articulated one, which is basically we support the idea of 
the removal of Qadhafi and they support the idea of supporting the 
people in Libya who are asking for a representative government. They 
just don't like our President's process. But that argument doesn't 
really make sense because if, in fact, their big complaint is that 
Congress hasn't had the opportunity to authorize this, then the Speaker 
of the House has had, by his own admission, a hundred days to offer 
that voice, to come up and say, No, we support the mission but here's 
how we want to limit it. They have not done that.
  I agree very strongly with Mr. Berman's statements. You can't have it 
both ways. You can't say we would like to remove Qadhafi, we would like 
to

[[Page 10040]]

support the Libyan people, but we're going to offer up resolutions that 
are going to stop that from happening. Now, we can argue back and forth 
about that process, but clearly the Speaker of the House had an option 
in front of him to deal with that process issue, and this isn't it.
  As has been pointed out, this will stop what we are doing in Libya. 
If you support that--let me just say I support Mr. Kucinich in the 
sense that he is very honest. He doesn't like what is going on there. 
He wants it stopped. That's a legitimate position. But to stand up and 
say, Yes, we have to support the Libyan people; yes, Qadhafi should go, 
we're just going to cut the legs out from under the effort that would 
actually do that because of a complicated process argument is not a 
legitimate point.
  I also want to point out people are legitimately concerned about the 
U.S. being too militant in our approach, and I agree with that. We 
cannot be the policeman for the world. We should not always carry the 
load. But in this case it is a very, very limited mission that we have. 
For once, NATO is actually carrying the bulk of the mission.
  While I agree with Mr. Frank's comments from earlier that NATO needs 
to step up and do more, we finally have an instance when they are 
stepping up and doing more, and we want to pull the rug out from under 
them for the tiny little piece of help that we are giving that makes 
this mission possible. This is a limited role, and we must recognize 
that.
  The Speaker also emphasized that we would like to have all the 
answers going in. We'd like to know what the mission to get rid of 
Qadhafi is exactly. Well, you don't always have all the answers, and 
this has evolved. Initially, our mission was clear: Stop Qadhafi from 
crushing the forces who are trying to rise up and have a voice in their 
own government. And we did that.
  Incidentally, we do have some answers about who these rebels are. Do 
you want to know who they are? Look at Benghazi. What's going on in 
Benghazi, the place that is controlled by the people in opposition to 
Muammar Qadhafi? It is not the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not al Qaeda. 
It is the people of Libya wanting a representative government who are 
running that place. So let's stop acting conveniently like we don't 
know who these people are. We do have a very good idea who they are, 
and they are deserving of our support.
  We have a clear, limited vision. If we vote for Rooney, we pull the 
rug out from under that mission. We put Qadhafi in a position to stay 
in power, and we undermine a group of people who are asking for a 
legitimate voice in their government. And keep in mind, again, this is 
a very limited use of U.S. power in a very positive way. Whatever the 
process arguments are that brought us to this point, don't let them 
have the United States look like we don't support people standing up 
for the very values that we continually espouse throughout the world.
  I urge defeat of this resolution and support for what we are doing in 
Libya.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining on our 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROONEY. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. I have during my tenure here voted twice to empower our 
military to take action. The first time was with Afghanistan; and the 
President came to the Congress and made a powerful case that it was in 
our national security interest to do so. I supported that. Then it was 
with Iraq; and the President came to Congress. He spent a significant 
amount of time providing evidence and making a case that there was a 
national security interest.
  This time, however, it was a surprise to me and to most of my 
colleagues that this mission was occurring. There has been no attempt 
to define what the national security interests are, the United States' 
interests in this military action. Without that, I can't look my 
constituents in the eyes and tell them why we are in Libya right now 
and active in military strikes against that nation state.
  So the one constitutional power that Congress has explicitly is the 
purse strings. We are exercising that right. I support the effort to 
pull those strings tight. Let's stop the flow of money into this 
action.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank Mr. Rooney and thank my colleagues. I 
think this has been a very important debate for this country and for 
our Constitution.
  I am opposed to this war and I want to end it. I think Mr. Rooney's 
bill is a powerful step in the direction of ending the war, but it's 
not the only step that we should take. It's the first step. The first 
step is a vote for Mr. Rooney's. You limit the war, and you stop the 
combat ops. Then the second step would be to vote on a defense 
appropriations amendment that would strike all funding for the war. So 
we take two steps here--the first step today.
  We have some of the best people in this Congress who have been in 
this debate today, and they don't agree with Mr. Rooney's bill. What 
they've said is that this bill would end the mission in Libya; and 
they've said that, if you don't have the ability to suppress, you 
couldn't continue with the bombing campaign. These are people on our 
side of the aisle who want to defeat this bill. They've made the 
argument, I think, as to why we should pass it.
  I want to thank Mr. Rooney for his leadership, and I urge a vote in 
favor of Mr. Rooney's bill.
  Mr. ROONEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments today, and 
we've had a great debate--a debate we really should have been having 
over the last hundred days or so, one that could have been spurred on 
by the administration for coming here and making the arguments as to 
why we should authorize or should not authorize money for hostilities 
in Libya. The President had the opportunity to come and make the case 
to this body, and he chose not to.
  The War Powers Act is clear. He has violated that law. Some have said 
it's unconstitutional, but the courts have never weighed in on it, so 
it is the law of the land, and it's one we have to abide by. But we can 
send resolution after resolution to the Senate and say that we don't 
agree, that we don't authorize. In the end, the power that we have is 
the power of the purse, as Mr. Terry just said, and we have to exercise 
that power in this House and say that we aren't going to spend money 
for hostilities in Libya.
  We heard the mission ``if you want to take out Qadhafi'' or ``if you 
want to free the Libyan people and give them the liberty they 
deserve.'' Number one, it was never the mission to begin with to take 
out Qadhafi. That has somehow morphed over time. We don't even know who 
the people are we're supposedly setting free.
  Without that debate and without that argument--and I appreciate the 
debate we've had today because I think it has been very helpful, quite 
frankly--all we can do is say, until the President comes and makes that 
case and gets authorization, he won't get funds; and at the same time 
responsibly say to our NATO allies that we'll support you in the rear, 
but we are not engaging in hostile acts.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  I wish our action today were unnecessary. As I noted earlier this 
year when the President initiated military action in Libya, he would 
have been better served by putting this matter before this body in 
advance of taking action, not afterwards. And as I predicted then, the 
President has been subjected to almost daily second guessing, 
criticism, and frequently partisan attacks over this operation. All of 
this was avoidable.
  None of us wish to abandon freedom-seeking Libyans or our NATO 
allies, and a vote for

[[Page 10041]]

this resolution does not mean we are doing either. Our logistical and 
intelligence support to NATO will continue uninterrupted. Our capacity 
to conduct cover action to assist the Libyan rebels will remain 
unimpeded. And the ability of the international community to continue 
to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Libya will be unaffected.
  I am voting for the Rooney bill for what it says, not for what some 
in the majority say it says. This should not be used as a club to 
attack President Obama. I will support this measure because it is 
absolutely imperative for the Congress, as an institution, to remind 
the President that the power to authorize military actions and war 
resides in this body. We strengthen our democracy by passing this 
resolution, we strengthen this institution by passing this resolution, 
and we honor our NATO obligations, and we stand by Libyans seeking 
self-determination, and that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in 
passing this resolution.
  Mr GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I have strong constitutional concerns 
regarding H.R. 2278. When the Founding Fathers met at the 
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the differentiation between 
which branch of the federal government initiates war and which branch 
conducts it was one of the most seriously debated topics. After deep 
thought and consideration, the Founders decided to grant Congress the 
power to declare war and left to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, 
the authority to conduct wars. Today, the Congress is asked to vote on 
a measure that would reverse the constitutionally prescribed war powers 
by directing the President on how to conduct the military conflict in 
Libya.
  While I have supported past efforts to defund the military conflict 
in Libya, I cannot vote in support of a bill that only defunds some of 
the military effort while endorsing others. The Congress should and 
must debate the merits of our foray into Libya and either authorize it 
completely or demand that the President terminate our military 
engagement. This is the only constitutionally sound course for Congress 
to take.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2278. This 
legislation will not end our military involvement in Libya. Both simply 
maintain the status quo and appease Republican Members who want to 
score political points against the President.
  Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans have voted for deep 
cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs. We could 
better achieve deficit reduction by swiftly ending the Libyan war and 
accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  Congress has the power of the purse. Our nation has been at war in 
Libya for 97 days and Congress has never authorized the conflict. We 
need to completely defund operations in Libya and put an end to this 
conflict. It is time for us to come together, use our constitutional 
authority, and apply this critical check on the executive branch. At a 
time when we continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot 
afford to pursue another military adventure that is not in our national 
interest. We must get out of this war now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this toothless bill, and instead 
defund operations in Libya in the upcoming 2012 Defense Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which 
masquerades as a limitation of funds for the President's illegal war on 
Libya, but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to 
H.R. 2278, the U.S. military cannot be involved in NATO's actions in 
Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first 
time the President would be authorized to use U.S. armed forces to 
engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against 
Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these 
activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, 
this bill would legalize nearly everything the President is currently 
doing there.
  That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the 
President a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill 
fails, the entirety of what the President is doing in Libya would 
remain illegal.
  Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use 
of funds for U.S. military attacks on Libya because those funds are 
already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to 
allow U.S. force against Libya, any such force is illegal, meaning the 
expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, 
however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as 
the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the 
Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about 
our Constitutional obligations and authority.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 328, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 494]

                               AYES--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Waters
     Webster
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--238

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Labrador
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin

[[Page 10042]]


     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Neal
     Nugent
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Berg
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hurt
     Napolitano
     Ryan (OH)
     Sewell
     Stivers
     Towns

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CARTER, Ms. FUDGE, Messrs. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, DUNCAN of South 
Carolina, ROHRABACHER, DONNELLY of Indiana, ISSA, ROYCE, MARCHANT, 
BURGESS, DOLD, and NUGENT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 
494. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 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.
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 494 on 
H.R. 2278. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I was meeting with constituents and 
unfortunately missed the last vote on H.R. 2278. Had I been here, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________