Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya; and providing for consideration of 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.

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.

It is a continuous, unending obligation to be in Libya. I would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we 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 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. 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 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 328 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 328 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2278 and H.J. Res. 68. The rule provides a total of 3 hours of debate in this Chamber on this vitally important issue of U.S. military operations in Libya. The rule also provides the minority with two separate motions to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, it was in this week in 1788, June 21, 1788, that the United States ratified its Constitution, that Constitution that still serves us so well today. In that Constitution, our Framers made clear that the power of the purse belongs here and here alone, here in the people's House, here on Capitol Hill; and that Constitution made clear that the power to declare war lies here and here alone.

On June 3 of this year by a vote of 268-145 the House of Representatives passed a resolution asking the President to make clear what his intentions are in Libya, asking the President to come and consult with Congress, to get Congress' permission, to seek our authority to prosecute those hostilities in Libya.

We have received some information from the White House since then. We have gotten a letter from the White House since then. We even have classified documents since then. But what we have not had since then, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the American people to make their voice heard on this important issue, because, after all, this isn't an issue for Congress, because as a Congressman, it is not about my voice. It is about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that I represent that I bring here to Congress, and those people's voices have yet to be heard on this Libya issue.

Operation Odyssey Dawn is in full operation now, since the month of March, and the people's voice has still not been heard. But today, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, as one of the longest-standing committees in this U.S. House of Representatives, first constituted in 1789, the Rules Committee is making that opportunity available with these two resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, my hope is that the people's voice will be heard today; that in this hour upon hour of debate that we have today, these two very different choices for where this country goes, that the American people will for the first time have their voice heard on the question of Libya.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we come back in July, we're going to take up the FY 2012 defense bill. In fact, we'll take it up tonight and start considering amendments when we return. We'll again have an opportunity to have our voice heard. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is an entire gradation of options that we have here. Are we going to declare war on Libya? Are we going to allow the President to continue doing what he's doing in Libya? Are we going to shut down the funding for troops on the ground on Libya? Are we going to shut down funding for Libya altogether? These are the questions that the Rules Committee has made available today and 2 weeks from now so that this House will be able to have its voice heard.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who has great reverence for the United States Constitution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I absolutely agree with the gentlelady. This is no place for politics. And that's why, as Mr. Kucinich has led this effort time after time after time, he's had tremendous support from the Republican side of the aisle.

This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the Constitution of the United States. This is about the 911,000 people I represent back home. This is about the people's voice being behind the President. As the chairman of the Rules Committee said, this should not be a time for division. This should be a time for unification.

I absolutely agree with my colleagues who are concerned about the debate happening today, on June 24. The time for the debate was March 18. The time for the debate was before this got started to begin with. But we have been put in this box, Mr. Speaker, and we have a constitutional responsibility to find our way out of it. We have on the floor today under this rule two opportunities, two opportunities to make our constituents' voices heard, and I encourage a strong ``yes'' vote for this rule so that we can bring those opportunities to the floor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with my colleagues who say it's much too late. It is much too late. I wish we'd had that opportunity to have this conversation before hostilities began.

I am new to this body, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps my colleagues knew hostilities were getting ready to begin. I did not. I heard about it on CNN. There was no consultation with Congress before those hostilities began. That was the right time to have this debate. That time has passed.

And for those who say delay, delay, delay, I'll tell you, it's already too late. We cannot delay any further.

And I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee has made these two resolutions available because you have two very clear choices today, Mr. Speaker.

As you know, on the Senate side there's the Kerry-McCain resolution. And this resolution that we have from Mr. Hastings today largely mirrors that resolution. If you believe that what's going on in Libya is in the best interest of the United States, if you believe we have a national security interest in Libya, if you believe that the Congress should make clear that we are behind the President and what's going on in Libya, you have that choice today in the resolution offered by Mr. Hastings.

If you believe that this is just another example of a war that's going to escalate, and you're concerned about that escalation, and you want to put yourself on the record as saying no, no more, no more, you have your chance to do that today with the Rooney resolution. No more.

I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a copy of Constitution of the United States of America, again, ratified this week in 1788. Article I, section 8: the Congress shall have the power to declare war. Article I, section 9: no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Mr. Speaker, it's easy to say that foreign policy is the dominion of the President of the United States, and it is. But the purse is the dominion of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I want to hearken back again to what the chairman of the Rules Committee said on the floor earlier: this should be a time of celebration. And, Mr. Speaker, when we have troops in harm's way, it should be something that we are unified behind and believe in as a Nation, that we are ready to prosecute a war effort to the fullest extent and bring our men and women home victorious.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a topic of unanimity. This is not a topic that we have found any sort of agreement on whatsoever in this body. In fact, this is a topic that we have been focused on and focused on and focused on, trying to bring to conclusion in this House. And this rule today, Mr. Speaker, gives us that opportunity.

Now, I want to make clear there's a further step that we could go. We could go one step further that says no funds shall be used, period. And when we return to this body, Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues, Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Amash, are going to make that amendment available to us, and I will be voting ``yes'' when that amendment comes down the pike.

But for today, we have an opportunity to take a step in that direction. We have an opportunity to make our voices heard. Are you with it, or are you against it? Do you support what's going on in Libya, or do you believe we're headed in the wrong direction as a Nation?

You have that opportunity today; but only, Mr. Speaker, if you vote ``yes'' for this rule to make these two measures in order. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank my friend from Lawrenceville for his typical stellar management of this very important rule; but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it saddens me greatly that we are here on the House floor, dealing with this. We have been in the midst of what has been a celebration, a celebration as described as the Arab Spring.

We saw a few months ago a young merchant in a small town in Tunisia very, very distraught over the fact that a government official came and took his scale away from him and took it to the government office.

He went back and asked for it, and when he made that request, he was denied it. He basically said he'd had enough, and so this young man chose to set himself afire in the middle of the town square in this tiny town in Tunisia.

Now, as we all know, that launched what has become known as the Arab Spring. The Economist magazine very appropriately said that one of the great developments that the Arab Spring has wrought is that we have now seen those so-called ``barbarians'' in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, move towards self-determination. Many people in the West and in other parts of the world very arrogantly said there's no way in the world that those people could possibly make great strides towards political pluralism and development of the rule of law, self- determination, but, in fact, we saw--beginning with this one very sad act--people throughout the Arab world in not only Tunisia, but Egypt, Bahrain and, yes,

in Libya, demonstrate their frustration over authoritarian dictatorships that were actually undermining the potential of the people of each of these countries.

So that's why, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that we are here today doing what it is that we're doing. Why? Because we should be in the midst of a celebration, a celebration of these very bold and dynamic steps that are being taken throughout the Arab world. And why is it that we're here? We're here because of what has been described by Members on both sides of the aisle--and I just heard my friend from New York describe the actions of this Presidency--as being the act of a monarch.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to look at recent history. If we go back to the 2006 election, the Republicans lost the majority in large part because of the war in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that.

There's an important distinction that needs to be made. If one goes back and looks at the action that was taken by President Bush, he chose to come to this Congress. He wanted the support of the American people through their elected Representatives and Senators to be behind his effort. We all know that he reached out to the United Nations, built a coalition, and there was lots of controversy. There, to this day, continues to be controversy. But the Congress was involved in that process, as has been the case in many instances in the past, not every instance, but many instances in the past.

We know, as my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, just said, that President Obama when he was a candidate, United States Senator, was very critical of President Bush. We know that his campaign for the Presidency in large part centered around this notion of bringing home the troops, and we had his speech the before night last on dealing with Afghanistan and his notion that we were going to bring these efforts to an end.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as we, I said, should be in the midst of celebrating the Arab Spring, we probably would have had, when one thinks about the actions that took place in Libya, we probably would have had, Mr. Speaker, pretty broad support here in the Congress for the action that was taken by the President if there had been an early authorization of this.

Now, it is, as I said, very sad that we are here now because I think Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that this has been very, very poorly handled. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's any more time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say that as we look at this, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that there are other very troubled spots in the world. We just, today, have gotten word of thousands of Syrians who are fleeing to Turkey because of the barbaric acts that have taken place there.

So I think that as we look at the great positive steps that have been taken in the Arab world, we need to make sure that the United States Congress and the President of the United States are in this together. There should be consultation and authorization to deal with this.

Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that as we look at this rule itself, I really am absolutely stunned, absolutely stunned at the kinds of things that I've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), knows, as we began debate on this, we had complete compliance with the 3-day layover requirement, and we had these measures before us. I would say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, there was not a single amendment offered in the Committee on Rules to deal with this, not a single amendment offered, and, in fact, one of these measures is offered by a Republican, gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney); the other is offered by a Democrat, the other gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

And so when I think about 3 o'clock in the morning on June 25 of 2009, we began the debate on this horrible idea of cap-and-trade, and it was 3 o'clock in the morning and I was sitting upstairs with my Rules Committee colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and dropped in my lap, still hot because it had just come off of the copying machine, was 300 pages of an amendment that we reported out.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at 3 o'clock in the morning we were handed this measure.

Now, what we have before us has, again, complied with the 3-day layover requirement, not a single amendment was offered, and there's a proposal offered by a Democrat and a proposal offered by a Republican. So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I believe that this rule is one that does allow for a free-flowing debate. It allows for an opportunity to consider this, and it's not as if we haven't been engaged in this discussion for a long period of time.

My friend from Cleveland is here and he has played a very, very constructive role in leading the charge on this over the past several weeks, as he often does, and I believe that our ability to continue this debate is an important one.

But again, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying it saddens me that at a time when we should be celebrating the fact there are people in the Arab world who are seeking the opportunity to enjoy the kinds of freedoms that we have here in the United States of America, that the President of the United States has chosen to go it alone without recognizing the very, very important responsibility of the first branch of the United States Government.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time, Mr. Speaker.

We're considering matters of war and peace today. On Sunday, our Nation will have been engaged in military action in Libya for 100 days. The actions taken by the President have a grave impact on the constitutional role of Congress and the role of the United States abroad. Taken together, these are among the most important issues that we as Members of Congress will ever consider. These are the very debates that scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades to come.

Given these fundamental issues, the American people deserve the full and thorough consideration that should be afforded to all legislation introduced in this body--with committee hearings

and debate, followed by an open and regular process, and a thoughtful debate by the whole House.

In 1990, when I was first here, the body considered a resolution regarding matters of war and peace. At the request of President George H.W. Bush, both Chambers of the United States Congress engaged in a fierce debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in the Persian Gulf. I have vivid memories of those debates long into the night, with issues being debated in committees, marked up by both parties, brought to the House floor for a final debate before the American public. On that particular measure concerning the Persian Gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 Members spoke. It was one of the most thorough airings of our constitutional obligations that I have witnessed.

In exchanges that can be publicly accessed today, Members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate engaged in an intelligent and enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, the dangers, and necessities of passing a resolution authorizing American troops to engage in military force overseas. There were strong views on both sides of the aisle, but these views were accompanied by an overriding sense of duty to our country--a belief that Congress would reach a decision based upon the thoughtful and prudent vote of its Members and a reflection of a common interest of all its citizens.

As historians look back on the debate over the Persian Gulf War, they can clearly see a vibrant democracy--a democracy that is engaged in robust debate and a democracy earnestly working together for the best interest of its people. Two decades later, we stand in a room imbued with this history--that debate took place right here--but we avoid the robust debates that preceded us here today. Indeed, the way in which today's measures are being debated shame the dignity, history, and tradition of this body.

Today's resolutions about our actions in Libya have been rushed through the House of Representatives. They were written behind closed doors and received neither committee hearings nor committee markups. The two resolutions are being considered under a single closed rule following an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon. The process by which these measures proceeded through the Rules Committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that we're being asked to vote for here today.

Late Tuesday night--10 o'clock, I believe--we were given two resolutions for an emergency meeting on Wednesday. They were added as emergency items to our afternoon meeting. When we got to the Rules Committee, they had been pulled from the agenda. It wasn't until 9 p.m. Wednesday that we received the text of H.R. 2278. Yesterday, we were notified that the Rules Committee would meet on this new and unvetted bill, along with one of the original two resolutions, less than 3 hours before the meeting began. We now stand on the House floor being asked to vote for a closed rule. We will then be asked to consider two resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust the measures to reflect the true will of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future Members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how their forebearers shaped the fate of this country.

In the case of the resolution of the Persian Gulf, they'll say how our democratic process thrived, whether one agreed with the resolution or not. Shamefully, in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a dysfunctional democratic process, one that has committed a disservice to the American people, to the dignity of the House of Representatives, and the future of the United States, by avoiding a true debate on one of the most important issues of our time.

For these very reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I would be happy to yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I would be pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate, we devoted 26 hours to it, and 263 Members, more than half the House of Representatives, spoke.

I agree with what has just been said by Ms. Lee: this is much too late. It comes at a very strange time, and it really says today that this is pretty much a political move, which I regret, because this is probably, as she pointed out, and those of us who've been here before having to vote for it, voting to go to war is the most solemn experience that we face here.

So let me urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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