25 June 2011, NYT: House Spurns Obama on Libya, but Does Not Cut Funds
16 June 2011, NYT: White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/politics/08powers.html
July 7, 2011
House Sends Conflicting Signals on Libya
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON -- The House voted down a measure on Thursday that would have prevented the United States military from using force in Libya, but it also blocked military support to the Libyan rebels as Congress continued to wrestle with how to respond to the Obama administration's decision to participate in the NATO-led air war.
Both of the measures were proposed amendments to a 2012 military appropriations bill, and the votes came after a debate that rehashed arguments over the legality, cost and merits of the intervention in Libya, which President Obama initiated without Congressional authorization. [1]
Most of the discussion focused on the measure that would have prevented the financing of any military force in Libya.
It was sponsored by Representatives Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, and was defeated 199 to 229.
The other amendment, which was discussed less thoroughly, was sponsored by Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. It would prevent the Pentagon from furnishing Libyan rebels with "military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities," and it passed, 225 to 201.
Should Mr. Cole's amendment become law, it is not clear what its effects would be.
The United States says it does not have military forces on the ground and is not arming the rebels.
It has, however, provided $12.5 million in "nonlethal" aid like food, medical supplies, boots, tents, uniforms and body armor in the areas rebelling against the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
After the vote, Mr. Cole's office issued a news release [2] claiming that his amendment would "defund Libyan operations." In an interview, he insisted it required an end to all United States military activities in Libya, arguing that the NATO air war -- while officially limited to protecting civilians -- has had the effect of supporting the rebels' military activities.
During the brief discussion of Mr. Cole's amendment, one lawmaker -- Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington -- suggested that it could end American participation in the NATO campaign, a transcript showed. But it was far from clear that many others shared that interpretation.
Nearly all of the discussion about whether to vote to cut off the use of military force focused on the amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Amash.
Several Republican aides said that the widespread understanding of Mr. Cole's amendment was that it would not affect the United States military.
The murky outcome followed votes last month in the House in which lawmakers voted down resolutions both to end and to authorize the mission. [3]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/politics/25powers.html