House Rejects Resolution Authorizing U.S. Libya Mission

Updated: June 28, 2011 | 8:43 a.m.
June 24, 2011 | 12:57 p.m.

Update: The House of Representatives has rejected a Republican-led effort to cut off funds for the conflict in Libya in what The Los Angeles Times's Kathleen Hennessey calls a "surprising victory for the White House in its power struggle with Congress." That followed another House vote involving congressional authorization of the Libya conflict, which is detailed below.

The U.S. House of Representatives has rejected by a 123-295 margin a resolution that would authorize U.S. military operations in Libya in what The New York Times characterized as "an extraordinary and potentially bipartisan rebuke of a sitting president engaged in an active conflict abroad." The Times says that 70 Democrats joined all but eight Republicans in voting no on the measure. 

The House will take up a bill that would strip funding for Libyan operations later on Friday. The Times explains that the Republican-backed bill "would prohibit the use of money for military operations in Libya and  would allow financing only for support operations like  search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially requiring an end to direct American combat activity like missile strikes." Whether or not it passes in the House, CNN notes it "is considered to have little chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate." CNN adds:

Much of the House's disapproval of the Libya campaign is being fueled by a belief that Obama failed to sufficiently consult with Congress before committing to military engagement. Specifically, a number of representatives from both political parties say the administration has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end hostilities.

The combined 90-day period ended last Sunday.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

3:11 p.m.

Latest Response by Michael Canes: Economics And Politics of Gas Exports

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

2:36 p.m.

Latest Response by Marlo Lewis: Central Planning: Bad Export Policy

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

1:30 p.m.

Latest Response by Jennifer Morgan: US Natural Gas Exports and Climate Risks

More Expert Opinions »