Expressing disapproval of United States intervention in Libya.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

If the Members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be one big constitutionally created potted plant.

This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the President. It states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a withholding of documents and information from this body.

Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of course. But we need to look not just at the President's failure to seek an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred duty of authorizing the use of force.

A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no invocation of the War Powers Resolution and which was presented to Members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War.

There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces.

If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an authorization of the limited use of force.

But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of the intervention.

The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not play around with reporting requirements.

The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the ground in Libya.

But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not the way to legislate.

Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and, ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol.

We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help. Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power?

Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya.

I object to the characterization that U.S. national security interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very much correspond with U.S. national interests.

The Republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both ways. They want to criticize the President for taking the very action that many of them called for 3 months ago. And

they want to do so without taking any responsibility. In the process, they are offering nothing but criticism, obstruction and endless second-guessing.

President Bush once accused the Democratic Party of becoming ``the party of cut and run.'' Well, it seems the running shoe is now on the other foot. It is a Democratic President that is taking on a brutal tyrant, and it is the Republican Party that refuses to back him.

I urge my colleagues to take seriously U.S. military involvement in Libya and vote ``no'' on this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing and what we're not doing. ``No boots on the ground'' did not come because of this resolution we are considering now. This was the decision of the President, the Commander in Chief, at the time. But the figures given by my friend from Indiana don't reflect the reality of our participation.

What are we doing now? While we're not in the lead, the United States is contributing significantly to the operation: fighter aircraft for the suppression of enemy air defense, ISR aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and predatory armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. Twenty-four percent, not two-thirds of the total aircraft; 27 percent of the total sorties flown; over 75 percent of all refueling sorties; 70 percent of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.

Now there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement implicates the War Powers Resolution. This is within the meaning of that bill. And, once again, only Kucinich has before us a proposal that seeks to deal with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

I just think we should get the record straight about what our involvement is. It's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it is significant. And in my opinion, it's within the terms of the War Powers Resolution.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to respond to my friend's arguments. I agree with every word he said except that this is a manifestation of the Congress exercising its authority. This is an abdication of Congress exercising its authority, because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be authorizing if we think they are appropriate.

The gentleman from Ohio doesn't think they are appropriate. Some of us do think it is appropriate, and this isn't about buying time. We are not a supplicant to go to the executive branch and ask for them to request of us authorization. We have the institutional power to decide what to do, and this resolution fails to take that option.

I think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in response to the previous speaker.

What I'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. If the President doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are we doing? The resolution is silent. This is a resolution filled with things we want and are asking for and demanding and are harumphing about with no consequences.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), former member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do thank both Speaker Boehner and Representative Kucinich for bringing these resolutions and bringing this issue to the floor because I completely agree that this is an issue that Congress should debate, discuss, and should ultimately express its opinion on. We have not done that. We are now past 90 days that this mission has been going on in Libya, and I feel we should have brought this up much sooner.

Now, I would prefer a much cleaner resolution that simply came out and made a resolution of approval of the President's mission and of the mission that we and NATO have undertaken in Libya and gave Members the chance to vote it up or down. In that sense, Mr. Kucinich's resolution is much more straightforward. It's a resolution of disapproval, but, again, it gives us the opportunity to at least debate the issue and express the will of Congress.

I do, however, oppose Mr. Boehner's resolution. I also oppose Mr. Kucinich's resolution because I don't think we should pull away from this mission, should pull out of what NATO is doing and the very important work that is going on in Libya.

Mr. Boehner's resolution doesn't do any of that, but it does rather boldly state that the President has not made a case for the mission in Libya, and I very strongly disagree with that assessment.

Now I will agree--and Mr. McKeon and I share the frustration--that prior to the launching of this mission, there was an inadequate amount of communication between the President and this Congress, indeed, between the President and the American people, explaining the reasons for getting into that mission; but since that time the President has made it very clear why we went into Libya.

We had a unique situation. I do not believe the American military should intervene in every conflict in every country. In fact, I don't believe it should intervene in almost any of them. It takes a unique set of circumstances to call for that intervention; and in Libya we had, I believe, that unique set of circumstances.

Number one, we had broad international support. The U.N., NATO, the Arab League all looked at that situation and said intervention was necessary.

Number two, we had a clear humanitarian crisis. There was no doubt at the time that we intervened that if we had not, Muammar Qadhafi would have slaughtered his own people and reasserted control over Libya. He made it clear that is what he was going to do. It was clear that the people rising up for the legitimate opportunity to be heard in their government did not have the power and the force to stop him. We did.

If we had not acted, there is no question that Muammar Qadhafi would be back in charge of Libya, and we would bear at least some piece of the responsibility--at least that is the way the rest of the world would have looked at it. We in the United States had the power and the force to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and chose not to act.

And that's one of the most critical elements in deciding whether or not to intervene: Can we intervene in a successful way? Yes, there are many countries throughout the world that face crises right now, in Syria, in Sudan, in the Congo, a whole bunch of places. But most of those places--in fact in all of those--there is no clear military mission that we could accomplish and achieve. In Libya, there was. If we intervened, we could stop Qadhafi from regaining control of his entire country.

At the time we understood there was no guarantee that that would mean that he would be driven from power immediately, but we could at least stop him from doing that. It was a humanitarian crisis that our actions could prevent. I think it made sense, and I think the President has clearly articulated that.

So for the Congress to pass a resolution saying they have no earthly idea what the President is doing in Libya simply means that they haven't been paying attention for the last couple of months. It has been made clear.

Now, I think it is appropriate that we ask the President to regularly keep in touch with us, let us know where the mission is going. I supported the resolution that said no ground troops in Libya. I think that is a step too far. I don't think that is something that would clearly be able to be accomplished militarily, so I do think that's appropriate.

But the part of this resolution that I must oppose is the part that says the President has made no national security case for why we should be involved in Libya. I believe that he has, and I don't think we should support a resolution saying otherwise. To have simply allowed Libya to fall apart and not helped a people that we could clearly help, that were legitimately calling for greater freedom and greater opportunity, I think, would have been a mistake.

So I will oppose the Boehner resolution, and I will also oppose the Kucinich resolution because I don't believe we should pull out of the mission. But again, I thank all of those involved for bringing this debate to the House floor so that we can have that debate so that we in Congress can assert our authority and express our opinion on this very, very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman from Virginia 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The President has said from the outset that our role in this mission will be limited; limited but critical. We are not committing troops, we are not committing the full force of the U.S. military, but what we are contributing, as Mr. Moran said, is absolutely critical to the success of the mission. We are supporting our NATO allies in making sure that this mission is carried out in a very limited and very critical way.

I just want to emphasize again that Muammar Qadhafi is not someone who is in the best national security interests of the United States of America. He has a long, long history of weapons of mass destruction, of supporting terrorist groups, of committing terrorist acts against United States citizens, and of in general being an unstable and destabilizing figure. When the people of Libya decided to rise up to throw him out, it was a very appropriate thing for them to do.

Now we all wish that Mr. Qadhafi would have gone quietly and simply-- that certainly would have been the easier way to go--but he didn't. And to protect those people who have legitimate aspirations for a better government, we needed to intervene militarily to assist.

Now I think in this instance the best thing about this is we were not alone. The Arab League, the United Nations, NATO, took the lead. There is a great deal of instability throughout the Middle East and that is unquestionably in the national security interests of the United States of America to do whatever we can to try and reduce that instability and make sure that we have friends, allies and also governments that legitimately represent the aspirations of their people. That is one of the greatest problems we've had. We have supported governments in the past in the Middle East who didn't have the support of their people. We need not just the support of governments, we need the support of the people in that region. This is a critical opportunity to gain that support. I believe that's clearly in the national security interest of the American people.

So, I do not agree with the gentleman from Ohio's resolution in saying that the President has not articulated a case. He has. We in the House should vote whether we approve it or not, but I don't think it is correct to say that the case has not been made. Let's have a vote in this body, as we will, on the Kucinich resolution, of whether or not to support what is going on there or not, but we should not simply be asking the President for something he has already provided.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 292) declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of House Resolution 292, sponsored by our distinguished Speaker. As the resolution states at the outset, the Armed Forces of the United States may only be used to defend and advance the national security interests of the United States, not to enforce, to quote the President, ``the writ of the international community,'' nor because of the United Nations, nor because of the Arab League. Yet these are what the President has repeatedly pointed to in justifying sending U.S. forces into action in Libya.

But what he has not done is explain to the American people and to Congress how the situation in Libya, if allowed to spiral out of control, poses a threat to U.S. national security interests.

It is an increasingly important region, Mr. Speaker, with implications stretching into other areas that are vital to our Nation. Little, if any, details have been provided in response to repeated questions regarding U.S. goals, the costs of the operation, the scope of the operation, and other issues of direct relevance to our national security. It is an open question as to whether the administration simply won't tell us or whether they just don't know the answers.

Members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. I share that frustration. Many question the importance of Libya to U.S. interests, and especially the need for military engagement. Many more are outright angry about the disregard with which the President and his administration have treated Congress on the Libya military engagement.

But it is not surprising that there is a desire to simply say ``enough'' and to force the President to withdraw precipitously, regardless of the consequences. But I believe that we would only make a difficult situation worse by taking such drastic action. The negative impact would be widespread, Mr. Speaker. The news that the U.S. House of Representatives had mandated a withdrawal of U.S. forces would send a ray of sunshine into the hole in which Qadhafi is currently hiding. It would ensure his hold on power. It would be seen not only in Libya, but throughout the Middle East and North Africa as open season to threaten U.S. interests and destabilize our allies.

Pulling out of the NATO operation would also undermine our NATO partners, who, after years of prodding by us, have finally begun to take more responsibility for ensuring security and stability in the region. How could we then argue that they must maintain their commitment to our allied efforts in Afghanistan when we have just pulled the rug out from under them in Libya?

We must not let our frustration with the President's contempt for Congress cloud our judgment and result in our taking action that would harm our standing, our credibility, and our interests in the region. But clearly, we must speak out.

This resolution offered by Speaker Boehner would send an unambiguous warning to the President that he must either change course in his dealings with Congress and the American people or have the decisions regarding U.S. involvement in Libya taken out of his hands.

It states a fundamental truth that I assume that most in this Chamber agree with that U.S. forces must only be used to defend and advance the national security interests of the United States. It underscores that the President has not made a compelling case for U.S. military involvement based on U.S. interests, and it prohibits the employment of U.S. ground forces in Libya so that mission creep would not gradually lead us into an ever-expanding conflict.

It also requires the President to provide to Congress the information that we should have had at the outset, including, Mr. Speaker:

What are the political and military objectives of the United States and Libya?

How do we intend to achieve them? What specific commitment have we made to our NATO operations, and how might these impact our commitments in Afghanistan?

What is the anticipated scope, the duration, and the anticipated cost of continued U.S. military involvement in Libya?

What is the relationship between opposition forces that are grouped under the Interim Transitional National Council and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups?

How well armed are these and other extremist groups, and how extensive are their activities in Libya?

Who controls thousands of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and stocks of chemical weapons that Qadhafi has acquired?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution bluntly states that the President has neither sought nor received authorization by the Congress for the continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. If this clear warning doesn't get the attention at

the White House, then more forceful action may be inevitable. The President can choose to act with the support of Congress and with the support of the American people, but he will not be allowed to proceed without it.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this strong and necessary resolution.

With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 292 and H. Con. Res. 51.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a valued member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Financial Services Committee and a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, with a distinguished 26-year military career.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the resolution offered by the Speaker is the responsible approach. It expresses congressional intent. It affords one last opportunity to the President and his administration

to work with us in Congress to advance U.S. interests in the region. I hope that the President is listening and that this resolution will serve as a wake-up call leading to immediate consultation. And, frankly, we have not had that as we would like.

If, in 14 days, as it says in this resolution, the President has not complied with the requests included in the resolution, then this House will consider the next steps.

I therefore urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehner resolution, a responsible approach to the President to work with us and a plea to give us the information that we requested.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend and the chairman for yielding me this time because I think it is important to stress the importance of the Boehner resolution. Especially on page 4 and page 7 of the resolution, it deals specifically with the Constitution and the constitutional responsibility of the administration and the Congress to work together, especially in matters of national security.

As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as my colleague has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding for any military operation that is approved by the Commander in Chief and approved by the Congress.

On the matter of Libya, on April 1, I sent a letter to the President, trying to exercise my responsibilities as chairman--a conciliatory letter, actually--expressing support for our troops but asking certain questions: How long do you think this will last? How much do you think it will cost? How much of a future commitment have we made? What will be the source of the funding for this operation? Here, more than 2 months later, this official request from the Appropriations Committee still remains unanswered by the administration. That's just not right.

The Constitution is pretty clear. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, in part, reads, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.''

So far, on the Libya issue, this article I, section 9 has been totally ignored. It's just not right. That's a violation, in my opinion, and contravenes the Constitution, itself. When I asked for that information, the only thing I got on the cost of this Libyan operation was in bits and pieces. We have added it, and we have come to about $750 million already spent on the Libyan mission. They've not confirmed that, but we have put together, with our own addition, bits and pieces on that. Again, we have received no reply whatsoever.

What I'm wondering is: Where is the money to pay for the Libyan operation coming from? What account is it coming from? Is it coming out of personnel costs--soldiers' pay? Is it coming out of medical care? Is it coming out of the training for our troops? What accounts are being used? We have a right and an obligation under the Constitution to know the answer to that.

Speaker Boehner's resolution calls very, very sharp attention to that issue, so I think it is important that the House passes the Boehner resolution to let the President know that we are not going to allow him to ignore the Constitution any further when it comes to war powers, when it comes to spending for the welfare of our troops, when it comes to appropriating money for the defense of our Nation and for the defense of our allies.

Madam Speaker, I do ask that the letter that I sent to the President, which has remained unanswered for more than 2 months, be included at this point in the Record so that my colleagues can see that it was a very, very legitimate and a very conciliatory request, basically an offer to support our troops in any legitimate activity. So we are still waiting. We are standing by, hoping that we do hear from the President very soon, maybe shortly after we pass the Boehner resolution.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Recent events across northern Africa

and the Middle East demonstrate the powerful effect that the

prospect of self-government and basic human rights can have

on an oppressed population. Governments have fallen and

nations have changed, all in the name of freedom. Operation

Odyssey Dawn (now Unified Protector), based on United Nations

Security Council Resolution 1973, is another chapter in this

remarkable story that history is writing before us.

The Members of the House Defense Subcommittee on

Appropriations stand ready to support our brave men and women

in uniform as they carry out their mission, but it is

essential that we know precisely what that mission is, and

what role U.S. troops have in achieving that mission. For

example, enforcement of a no-fly-zone is one thing, but the

use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 aircraft denote an entirely

different battle. And without knowing what goals we hope to

achieve, our long-term commitment is unclear. Indeed, as

history has taught us, without defined goals or objectives

the probability of an open-ended campaign increases. As our

nation continues to struggle through the current fiscal

crisis, an exit strategy seems all the more prudent. There

was, however, little to no consultation with Congress prior

to these actions, and almost two weeks after our first

engagement, many of these concerns remain unaddressed.

The Department of Defense has indicated that through March

28, they spent approximately $550 million in support of

Operation Odyssey Dawn; and they expect to spend at a minimum

another $40 million a month as we continue to support the now

NATO-led Operation Unified Protector. This assumes a reduced

U.S. role, which could change significantly if NATO requires

additional support. It was also made clear that there would

be no additional funds requested by your Administration,

either in the form of a supplemental request or a budget

amendment. In fact, you stated that the costs of this mission

could be paid for out of previously appropriated funds. As

this Committee works to finish fiscal year 2011 and begins

work on fiscal year 2012, I feel it is imperative that we

know where you believe these funds will come from. Based on

the above Department

of Defense rate, costs for fiscal year 2011 could reach $800

million, and depending on the length of our commitment,

another $500 million in fiscal year 2012. I do not need to

remind you that the Department of Defense fiscal year 2012

request is already $13 billion below where it was estimated

it would be just a year ago--the reduction taken in the name

of efficiencies.

As the nation's military continue to serve in harm's way, I

feel it is imperative we proceed with complete openness and

transparency. I pledge that I will continue to do everything

I can to support these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and

airmen, as I have done throughout my career, and I ask for

your help and support in doing the same.

Sincerely,

C. W. Bill Young,

Chairman, Defense Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, ``Directing the President, Pursuant to Section (c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces from Libya,'' I support the War Powers Resolution however I cannot support a resolution which requires the President to withdraw all United States Armed forces within 15 days of its adoption.

As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United States. This Concurrent Resolution is a reminder to the American people that we must firmly hold true to our constitutional duties. We have the power to ensure the Executive does not overstep its bounds. As Members of Congress we can exercise our power through appropriation, the appointment process, exercising oversight over the Executive, enactment legislation, or even establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse of power by the administration.

Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers had long argued about which branch of government has the power to decide whether the nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches has not always taken place.

In 1973, the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) was passed over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities.

Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States . . .''.

The policy behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander in Chief, to deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised only pursuant to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' Pursuant to this authority, the President ``in every possible instance'' shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed Forces, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in hostile situations.

As we consider the War Powers Resolution, we must also consider facts surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya and the consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan people.

I believe in the Constitution and the importance of maintaining the power of Congress in asserting when international conflicts warrant U.S. military involvement. I call upon the President to issue a report detailing the current status of the United States military forces in Libya within the next 30 days.

We must not forget the bloodshed that continues to take place in Libya. The people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for democracy. This conflict began in Libya four months ago when Colonel Gaddafi failed to do what was right for his country and its people. Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt

the painful consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil liberties were infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of all, many Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed under the command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a conflict with a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were authorized by the hand of the Libyan leader himself.

The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated and continues to be encouraged by the very man charged with protecting the Libyan people. The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside help. The question is no longer whether or not Libya is in a critical condition. I call on my fellow Members of Congress to continue to condemn the violence taking place in Libya today.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi chose to remain steadfast to the status quo--to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake. The reality of the situation is this: it was Gaddafi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we deliberate the role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people.

We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life.

Gaddafi has a long record of bloodshed and blood continues to run in the streets of Libya. We cannot stand by and do nothing, and America cannot do this alone. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United Nations, the African Union, and other world groups to stop the slaughter and violence against the people of Libya.''

As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

I stand with the people of Libya fighting for peace and freedom. It is clear that NATO has taken the Lead in protecting the Libyan People.