Providing for consideration of 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 providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.

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.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

May 26, 2011

Rollcall vote 375, on passage--H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 376, On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment--S. 990, Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011--I would have voted aye.

May 31, 2011

Rollcall vote 377, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--H.R. 1484, Veterans Appeal Improvement Act--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 378, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--S. 1082, Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 379, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--H.R. 1954, To Implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt--I would have voted nay.

June 1, 2011

Rollcall vote 380, On Consideration of the Resolution--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 381, On Ordering the Previous Question--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 382, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 287, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2017, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 383, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--H.R. 802, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a VetStar Award Program--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 384, On Agreeing to the LaTourette of Ohio Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 385, On Agreeing to the Cicilline of Rhode Island Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 386, On Agreeing to the Royce of California Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 387, On Agreeing to the Poe of Texas Amendment No. 8-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 388, On Agreeing to the Cuellar of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

June 2, 2011

Rollcall vote 389, On Agreeing to the Clarke of Michigan Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 390, On Agreeing to the Sessions of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 391, On Agreeing to the Lummis of Wyoming Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 392, On Agreeing to the Carter of Texas Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 393, On Agreeing to the Price of North Carolina Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 394, On Agreeing to the Sherman of California Amendment--H.R. 2017,

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 395, On Agreeing to the Gosar of Arizona Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 396, On Agreeing to the Scalise of Louisiana Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 397, On Agreeing to the King of Iowa Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 398, On Agreeing to the Cravaack of Minnesota Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 399, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 400, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 2--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 401, On Agreeing to the Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 3--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 402, On Agreeing to the Rokita of Indiana Amendment No. 1--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 403, On Agreeing to the Rokita of Indiana Amendment No. 2--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 404, On Agreeing to the Cole of Oklahoma Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 405, On Agreeing to the Gohmert of Texas Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 406, On Agreeing to the Mica of Florida Amendment--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 407, On Agreeing to the Polis of Colorado Amendment-- H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 408, On Motion to Recommit with Instructions--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 409, On Passage--H.R. 2017, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012--I would have voted aye.

June 3, 2011

Rollcall vote 410, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 294, Providing for consideration of H. Res. 292 declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya, and for consideration of H. Con. Res. 51 directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Libya--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 411, On Agreeing to 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--I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 412, On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Con. Res. 51, Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya--I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 51 by my colleague Congressman Dennis Kucinich, which directs President Barack Obama to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than 15 days after the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

Let me be perfectly blunt--the reason we are here today voting on two resolutions that deal with the President's role and responsibility under the War Powers Resolution is because of President Obama's failure to abide by the law, and our failure to address this issue before day 74.

The War Powers Resolution was enacted into law on November 7, 1973, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. The law states that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to introduce United States forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to either (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories and possessions, or its forces.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President--in every possible instance--to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization, such as the Congressional Resolution that provided President George W. Bush authority to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

The War Powers Resolution also requires the President to report to the United States Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, into foreign territory while equipped for combat, or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation. Such a report is required within 48 hours. Once this report is submitted--or required to be submitted--the United States Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 days, or the forces must be withdrawn within 30 days from the 60 day mark.

Before discussing the current situation the United States finds itself in, it is important for the American people to understand the reasoning behind the passage of the War Powers Resolution in the 1970s.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to declare War, not the President. However, Article II, Section 2 declares that ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' Many Presidents have cited their authority under Article II, Section 2 to defend the United States against attacks, or to take actions in our nation's national security interest, through military action without a formal declaration of war.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon used their authority as Commanders in Chief in order to send American combat ``advisors'' forces into Vietnam beginning in the late 1950s. By the 1968 Tet Offensive, the United States had over half a million troops on the ground in Vietnam engaged in intense military conflict. Unclear about the American strategy in Vietnam, many Members of Congress became concerned about their eroding authority granted by the Constitution to debate, decide and declare when to involve the United States in a war.

As such, the War Powers Resolution enacted in order to ensure the checks and balances mandated by the United States Constitution would remain intact during times of armed conflict.

On March 19, 2011, U.S. military forces began operations in Libya. Two days later, on March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed the United States Congress that Operation Odyssey Dawn was aimed at ``assisting an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security.''

To date, President Obama has not provided a clear and defined mission for the United States involvement in Libya. Since the opening hours of military action on March 19, the President has had no clear direction in Libya. President Obama has not defined the mission, defined success, nor defined the end state. Further, the President has still not identified who the so-called rebels are that are receiving millions of dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and resources, as well as attacks against Moammar Qadaffi's forces.

As a 22-year Army combat veteran, I can tell you from experience that successful mission completion is obtained by properly defining the very things I have mentioned, which

President Obama has failed to do. As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, I swore an oath to protect and defend American citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Is Moammar Qadaffi an enemy of the United States--absolutely. But because President Obama has not informed us of whom the rebel forces we are supporting are, how can we be absolutely certain that they will not be an enemy of this country? Quite simply, we cannot because the President has failed to define our strategy.

It has now been 74 days since President Obama informed the United States Congress on the introduction of American forces into Libya as required by the War Powers Resolution. Since March 21, 2011, the United States Congress has not declared war or enacted a specific authorization for the use of force, has not extended the 60-day period required by the War Powers Resolutions, nor is United States Congress physically unable to meet as a result of an attack upon the United States. In fact, United States Congress has met nearly 30 times since March 21, 2011. Therefore, President Obama is in violation of Title 50, Chapter 33 of United States Code--the War Powers Resolution.

Section 5, Paragraph C of the War Powers Resolution states that ``at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by Concurrent Resolution.''

The Concurrent Resolution offered by Congressman Kucinich falls right in line with Section 1544 of the War Powers Resolution, and simply states that pursuant to Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution, the United States Congress directs the President to remove armed forces from Libya within 15 days of enactment.

President Barack Obama is in violation of the law--plain and simple-- and he must comply with the law. The very foundation of our Republic lies on the rule of law, and is guarded by a system of checks and balances, and as a Member of the United States Congress, I have a Constitutional obligation to ensure this system is upheld.

I support the Concurrent Resolution offered by Representative Kucinich.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), be allowed to control 15 minutes of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Libya. The President has failed to make the legal and constitutional case that he owes to the Congress and to the American people before committing American forces to a voluntary conflict. But the situation as it stands today poses an important U.S. national security consideration, and it requires this body to oppose this Kucinich resolution.

What are these considerations, Madam Speaker? These are: the sudden U.S. withdrawal from Libyan operations proposed by this resolution could do irreparable harm to the NATO alliance, and ultimately undermine support for NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Also, the longer Qadhafi is able to

cling to power and continue fighting, the more that he will destabilize the larger region. Conflict is already spilling over into neighboring countries--Tunisia, for example, which is undergoing a fragile transition of its own. Also, there are significant proliferation concerns at stake, including the need to secure Libyan chemical munitions and prevent the flow of heavy and light weaponry from leaking across the porous borders of Libya. Also, extremist organizations that pose a credible threat to American interests, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, already are exploiting the opportunity to arm themselves and organize.

So while I share the frustration of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned that an abrupt withdrawal of support for the NATO mission would have repercussions that extend far beyond the borders of Libya. Adoption of this resolution would send a signal to Qadhafi that if he can just hang on for 15 days more, the alliance will crumble and he can resume his destructive behavior and his destabilizing activities. In Egypt, the stability necessary to prevent extremist elements from seizing control could be compromised if the conflict in Libya remains unresolved.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, providing Qadhafi free rein by forcing the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the NATO operation would pose an even more virulent threat to such other allies in the region as Israel. An emboldened Qadhafi regime would be in a position to provide both destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons, as well as unconventional capabilities through new and existing smuggling routes to violent extremists in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, extremists who seek the destruction of Israel.

A U.S. withdrawal in a manner that is called for in this resolution, in fact mandated in this resolution, could have detrimental consequences for countries such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, who provide critical support to the United States and our NATO allies in Afghanistan. And, as operations experts from the Department of Defense warned yesterday, an abrupt withdrawal from Libya operations, as this resolution demands, would severely undermine support by our European allies for NATO efforts in Afghanistan.

In fact, it would have a detrimental effect on NATO's efforts in Afghanistan both in terms of weakening our mission partners and emboldening the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated elements. It would compromise the safety and security of U.S. forces that at this very moment are engaged in the battle against heavily armed enemy forces in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, my daughter-in-law Lindsay served in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I also have two committee staffers, one in the Army Reserves and one in the Marine Reserves, who recently returned from serving a year each in Afghanistan. They have emphasized that the potential dangers to our troops there of a NATO pullout or a decrease of forces and assets in Afghanistan due to a need to refocus them on ongoing operations in Libya is indeed dangerous for the United States. They have emphasized that operations in Libya do not exist in a vacuum.

Recall that the House just this last week adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill to prevent U.S. military or private security contractors from establishing or maintaining a ground presence in Libya. Speaker Boehner has offered a resolution that we discussed previously that further underscores that the Congress does not support putting U.S. boots on the ground in Libya.

Now, many have argued that Congress needs to strongly exert its prerogatives under War Powers. We must do so, Madam Speaker, but do so in a prudent and responsible manner that protects the legitimate national security interests of the United States. This resolution, Madam Speaker, does not do so. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Yes, we will use the time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a captain in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.

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.

I agree with the gentleman from New York, and our political philosophies may be different. I think it's a powerful and passionate speech. What frustrates me, I think, the most, and the fact that we are even having this debate in this way is because the President has not led on this particular issue. He should have come before Congress. I think that's clear.

I don't think anyone really objects to the fact that he should have come here anytime when we put our troops in harm's way, absolutely. I think he's done not a great job talking about what our national security interests are in Libya and what role we're playing in Libya. Bad marks all the way around.

But the Kucinich resolution is dangerous. I do believe we have national security interests at stake here. Even though the President has gone about it in all the wrong way, they're our national security interests. And to stand up today and say we're frustrated with the President, we're going to stomp our feet and we're going to bring them home, leaving our allies holding the bag, is unconscionable-- unconscionable.

Here's what happens if the Kucinich resolution passes: the naval blockade becomes at risk, Qadhafi gets stronger, our ability to refuel aircraft--NATO aircraft who are doing strikes, not the United States who are doing strikes mind you, our British, our Italian and our French allies who are doing combat strikes--goes away.

The fact that we cannot get in and do particular efforts on making it very difficult for them to see through radar and actually target planes happens by the United States, that goes away. Who

would do that to friends and allies in the middle of a fight?

And here's our national security interests. They have thousands and thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. This isn't a guess. We're not reading some analytical sheet. Many of you have seen it. I have personally seen it. We know it's there. It's declared. What happens to those chemical weapons in a place where al Qaeda in the Magreb is growing stronger, not weaker? There's only one country in the world that has the unique capability to keep an eye on it and take care of it when the opportunity arises. That's the United States of America. That is in our national interest. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft weapons that keep me awake at night.

We have the unique capability in the United States to make sure that those weapons systems don't fall into the hands of those who would do us harm--the terrorists who proliferate in northern Africa right now. Those are in our national security interests.

So, yes, let's have the debate. I think the Speaker's approach is absolutely appropriate. It's sad that we had to come to that point where we had to inform this administration, ``Sir, you have not made your case. You need to come and make your case.'' And I argue when he does that, when he makes his case, I think the American people will be with him. But he has to make the case, and he needs Congress' consult and advice on this particular issue. And I argue he needs our approval to continue to move forward.

I hope that we don't get really small in our politics and we're so angry at this President for not making his case on something as sensitive as this that we would ruin our national interests as we move forward. They are important allies, our French and our British. Now we've been frustrated at them, and I'm sure they're frustrated at us. But they've spilled their blood and their treasure in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and they currently help us fight terrorism where we find it in the world.

Do you poke your friend in the eye because you're mad? No. This is an important issue that has to be bigger than our political parochial beliefs. It has to be bigger than our congressional districts. This is about America, our future, our allies, and, yes, our national security.

Who better to make sure that those shoulder-fired weapons don't go someplace than us? Who better to make sure that those chemical weapons don't fall in the hands of terrorists who seek to kill innocent men, women and children? Qadhafi has been proven to be a state sponsor of terror. The Pan Am bombing, he killed hundreds. He killed U.S. soldiers in Germany in the eighties, our U.S. soldiers, through an act of terrorism. We know he still has terrorism hit squads. We know it. We can't prove that he's engaged them yet, but we know they exist. Why would we walk away from that threat when we know he's under siege and feeling desperate?

This is the time we should stand with our allies, Madam Speaker. This is the time that we should say, yes, our national security interests are at heart. And, yes, Mr. President, come down and meet your constitutional obligation and show this Congress why we're there, what role we're playing and what it means to our national security.

I would urge a strong rejection of cutting and running in the Kucinich amendment and a strong support of the Speaker of the House's right approach to bring the President to Congress, as he needs to be.

I yield 2 minutes to the prime cosponsor of this important constitutional initiative, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has been very closely involved in helping construct bipartisan support for H. Con. Res. 51, and I thank him.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has been a driving force behind this resolution.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains for all?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Members will be asked to vote on two resolutions, H. Con. Res 51, and a resolution offered by Speaker Boehner, H. Res. 292, both of which address U.S. military involvement in Libya.

I do not believe that H. Res. 292 is at odds with H. Con. Res. 51, but it's not a substitute for the resolution that Mr. Burton and others have worked on. It's imperative that Members clearly understand this, because the consequence of voting for one--that's the Speaker of the House resolution--and not the other, H. Con. Res 51, ends up being an endorsement of unconstitutional action that was taken by the White House.

So how does Congress deal with the failure of any President to adhere to the Constitution? If Congress does not challenge a President's dismissal of the clear meaning of article I, section 8, then we will have tacitly endorsed a President's violation of the Constitution and guaranteed the perpetuation of future constitutional transgressions. A mild rebuke alone of the usurpation

of a constitutionally mandated war power is insufficient to defend the Constitution.

Many of us want to support our President, but the President has ignored Congress' assertion of the war powers by failing to obey the War Powers Resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

There are those who may hesitate to support my resolution because of the supposed negative impact it will have on the NATO mission and on our image in the eyes of our NATO allies.

In the weeks leading up to the war, the administration had time to consult with the Arab League, the United Nations, and the African Union, but apparently had no time to come to this Congress for approval. If our image in the eyes of NATO is a reason to stay in Libya, the administration should not have committed the U.S. to a war of choice without consulting with Congress for an action that was so far outside that which is allowed by the War Powers Resolution.

Far more damaging is a Congress that ends up being more concerned with our image in the eyes of NATO than our fulfillment of our constitutional responsibilities and the continued usurpation of the war power by the executive. Our loyalty to NATO and to our President, regardless of party affiliation, does not trump our loyalty to the United States Constitution.

May I ask the gentlelady, will she be closing?

I want to thank all Members on both sides of the aisle who have participated in this important constitutional debate.

What does it mean to defend the Constitution? Well, if you know that Congress very clearly has the power to declare war, if you believe the President violated the Constitution in this regard, then you cannot come to any conclusion other than to say that we stand up and defend the Constitution by voting for H. Con. Res. 51.

Let us also defend the Founding Fathers and the doctrine of separation of powers. Let us defend the doctrine of checks and balances. Let us defend the institution of the Congress of the United States. And as we stand here, having taken an oath to defend the Constitution, this, my friends, is our moment to stand up for that oath, to act in defense of the Constitution.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Con. Res. 51. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle, who I know are ready to step forward in this moment, to join me.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.