[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2540-S2542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 148--CALLING ON THE PRESIDENT TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF UNITED STATES POLICY OBJECTIVES IN LIBYA, BOTH
DURING AND AFTER MUAMMAR QADDAFI'S RULE, AND A PLAN TO ACHIEVE THEM,
AND TO SEEK CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST LIBYA
Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Roberts, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 148
Whereas, on February 15, 2011, protests against longtime
Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi began in Benghazi, Libya,
following the arrest of human rights advocate Fathi Tarbel;
Whereas, on March 10, 2011, rebels in Libya, armed with
outdated anti-aircraft guns and facing overwhelming firepower
from Qaddafi forces, were forced to retreat from strongholds
in eastern Libya, while doctors in Libya reported that
civilian casualties had doubled, mostly as the result of
airstrikes ordered by Qaddafi;
Whereas, on March 10, 2011, France became the first country
to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council,
organized by the Libyan rebel leadership, as the legitimate
government of Libya;
Whereas, on March 12, 2011, Amr Moussa, secretary general
of the Arab League, announced, ``The Arab League has
officially requested the United Nations Security Council to
impose a no-fly zone against any military action against the
Libyan people.'';
Whereas, on March 16, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi's forces neared
the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and Saif al-Islam,
Qaddafi's son, vowed that ``everything will be over in 48
hours'';
Whereas, on March 16, 2011, following United Nations
Security Council negotiations, U.S. Permanent Representative
to the United Nations Susan Rice announced United States
support for a no-fly zone, stating, ``But the U.S. view is
that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that
include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone.'';
Whereas, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security
Council voted to approve a no-fly zone over Libya, passing
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which
authorized ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians;
Whereas, on March 19, 2011, President Barack Obama
authorized United States military operations against Libya,
and Operation Odyssey Dawn commenced;
Whereas, on March 19, 2011, the United States Armed Forces
began air and sea strikes against targets along the coast of
Libya against Libyan air defenses;
Whereas, on March 21, 2011, President Obama sent a letter
notifying Congress that he had ordered strikes on Libya and
outlining United States military actions in Libya during the
preceding 48 hours;
Whereas, on March 23, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi's forces
shelled the town of Misrata, held by Libyan rebels, killing
dozens of civilians;
Whereas, on March 24, 2011, coalition forces hit military
targets deep inside Libya, but failed to prevent Qaddafi's
tanks from re-entering Misrata and besieging its main
hospital;
Whereas, on March 24, 2011, North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
announced that NATO would take command of enforcing the no-
fly zone over Libya and was considering taking control of the
full United Nations-backed military mission;
Whereas, on March 30, 2011, forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi
pressed further east with an artillery offensive, pushing
Libyan rebels back more than 95 miles towards Brega;
Whereas, on March 31, 2011, United States Africa Command,
which had led the initial phases of military operations
against Libya under Operation Odyssey Dawn, transferred
command and control of international air operations over
Libya to NATO;
Whereas, as of March 31, 2011, Operation Unified Protector,
under sole command of NATO, is now responsible for the arms
embargo, no-fly zone, and actions to protect civilians in
Libya;
Whereas, as of April 4, 2011, in support of Operation
Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector, the United
States had flown approximately 1,600 military sorties and, as
of April 7, 2011, had launched 228 Tomahawk Land Attack
Missiles and spent approximately $632,000,000;
Whereas President Obama has repeatedly indicated that his
policy on Libya is that Muammar Qaddafi should no longer
serve as the leader of the Government of Libya;
Whereas, on February 26, 2011, 11 days after the protests
began, President Obama discussed the situation in Libya with
Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and, according to a White
House statement, said, ``When a leader's only means of
staying in power is to use mass violence against his own
people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do
what is right for his country by leaving now.'';
Whereas, on March 3, 2011, President Obama, at a joint
press conference with President of Mexico Felipe Calderon,
said, ``Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and
he must leave. . . [W]e will continue to send the clear
message that it's time for Qaddafi to go.'';
Whereas, on March 18, 2011, President Obama, at a joint
press conference with President of Chile Sebastian Pinera,
said, ``I have also stated that it is U.S. policy that
Qaddafi needs to go. And we got a wide range of tools in
addition to our military efforts to support that policy.'';
Whereas, on March 28, 2011, President Obama, in an address
to the Nation, began to draw a distinction between United
States political and military objectives in Libya, saying,
``There is no question that Libya--and the world--would be
better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many
other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will
actively pursue it through non-military means.'';
[[Page S2541]]
Whereas, on March 29, 2011, President Obama, in an
interview on NBC Nightly News, continued to draw this
distinction, saying, ``Our primary military goal is to
protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone.
Our primary strategic goal is for Qaddafi to step down so
that the Libyan people have an opportunity to live a decent
life.'';
Whereas, despite President Obama's policy that Muammar
Qaddafi should no longer serve as the leader of the
Government of Libya, President Obama has not presented
Congress with a plan to achieve that policy objective;
Whereas President Obama has not sought from Congress any
type of authorization for the use of military force against
Libya;
Whereas passage of a non-binding, simple resolution by the
Senate is not equivalent to an authorization for the use of
military force, passed by both the Senate and the House of
Representatives and signed by the President; and
Whereas senior officials in the Obama Administration,
including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Harold Koh, the
Department of State's Legal Adviser, have incorrectly pointed
to the Senate passage of a non-binding resolution, Senate
Resolution 85 (112th Congress), as an expression of
congressional consent for the United States military
intervention in Libya: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the President should submit to Congress--
(A) a detailed description of United States policy
objectives in Libya, both during and after Muammar Qaddafi's
rule;
(B) a detailed plan to achieve those objectives;
(C) a detailed estimate of the full cost of the United
States military operations in Libya and any other actions
required to implement the plan; and
(D) a detailed description of the limitations the President
has placed on the nature, duration, and scope of United
States military operations in Libya, as referenced in his
March 21, 2011, letter to Congress; and
(2) the President should seek a congressional authorization
for the use of military force against Libya.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, moments ago, I sent to the desk a
resolution on my behalf, as well as that of Senator Collins, Senator
Blunt, Senator Lee, Senator Roberts, and Senator Inhofe, relating to
the military operations in Libya. I would like to speak for a few
moments about that and about my concerns.
Like all of our colleagues, I respect our troops and honor them and,
of course, their sense of duty, which obligates them to do whatever the
Commander in Chief has directed them to do. And, of course, I respect
the role of our President as Commander in Chief. But I have grown
increasingly concerned that the role of Congress in consultation and in
communication with the White House on matters of such grave import to
our country and our men and women in uniform as intervening in a
foreign country--that the powers of Congress have seemingly been
ignored or certainly eroded.
We know this is not new. Since the end of World War II, to my
recollection, the U.S. Congress has never exercised its authority under
article I, section 8 of the Constitution to declare war. Instead, when
our nation has been involved in military operations, we have had
something other than a war declared by Congress, but most often with
communication and consultation and even authorization by the Congress.
I believe it is imperative, particularly in light of the events
subsequent to our intervention in Libya, that the President should
submit a plan to Congress on Libya. I believe the President should also
come to Congress and ask for a congressional authorization for our
continued participation, even in a NATO mission of which the United
States bears a disproportionate responsibility.
Like many Americans, I admire the Libyans who protested against
Muammar Qaddafi beginning on February 15 of this year. And the
timeline, I believe, is important. February 15. They showed they wanted
the same things as people in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and
so many other nations in the Middle East; that is, a chance to live in
freedom and to have a voice in determining their own future.
But, like many Americans, I was also concerned that the people of
Libya got so little encouragement from our own President. True,
President Obama said on March 3 that Qaddafi had lost legitimacy and he
``must step down from power and leave'' immediately. That was on March
3. He indicated this was the policy of the U.S.--that regime change was
our goal in Libya--regime change. But he obviously had no plan to
accomplish that goal or to further assist the Libyan people in
accomplishing it themselves, other than handing the responsibility off
to NATO. Now, this is not like handing it off to some third party that
is alien to us or not part of us. We--the United States--are a
significant part of NATO's operations. For example, in Afghanistan,
basically for every one coalition troop from other NATO countries,
there are two American troops, and we bear the proportionate financial
responsibility as well.
The President watched as Qaddafi forces regained the momentum against
those who had taken up arms against the regime. France--France--became
the first nation to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council
as the legitimate government of Libya on March 10. And then the Arab
League asked that a no-fly zone be imposed over Libya on March 12.
Finally, on March 17--this was almost a month after the first protests
against Qaddafi in Libya--the United Nations Security Council approved
a no-fly zone over Libya, as well as necessary measures to protect
civilians in that country.
U.N. Security Council resolutions take a lot of time to negotiate.
There is obviously the need for a lot of consultation between the
nations making up the U.N. Security Council. That is why I am only left
to wonder why it was during this period of time that the President made
so little effort to consult with Congress in a substantive way. I admit
he appeared to act like he checked the box once or twice. He sent us a
letter on March 21--2 days after Operation Odyssey Dawn began--letting
us know what we could have learned from reading the newspaper and
watching cable television, that he had ordered strikes on Libya. But
the level of consultation with Congress about Libya was nothing like
what we had in the years leading up to U.S. military involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan, where Congress issued an explicit authorization
for use of military force at the request of the President of the United
States.
This is not just a constitutional powers matter. I think this is also
a matter of communicating with the American people about the reasons
for our intervention in Libya and expressing to the American people
what the plan is so they can do what they naturally want to do; that
is, provide support for our men and women in uniform, particularly when
they are in harm's way.
The President waited until 9 days after our planes and missiles were
in the air to make his case to the American people in a speech at the
National Defense University. During that speech, the President began to
draw a very confusing distinction between our political and military
objectives in Libya, saying:
There is no question that Libya--and the world--will be
better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many
other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will
actively pursue it through non-military means.
Or, as he put it in an interview the next day, he said:
Our primary military goal is to protect civilian
populations and to set up the no-fly zone. Our primary
strategic goal is for Qaddafi to step down so that the Libyan
people have an opportunity to live a decent life.
I bet I am not the only person in the country who is confused by this
dichotomy between our military goals and our strategic goals. I think
they should be the same.
We know the American people still have many questions about what we
are doing in Libya and why. As a matter of fact, I met this morning
with some Texas Army National Guardsmen who were visiting the Capitol
just today, who asked me a question on this very subject because they
are confused. If our men and women in uniform are confused about the
President's objective, and the American people do not understand what
it is either, it means there has not been a good case made explaining
the need for military intervention and the ongoing operations. But do
not take my word for it. According to a Pew Research poll on April 3,
only 30 percent of Americans believe the United States or our allies
have a clear goal in Libya--30 percent. Our troops deserve more
clarity.
The President told our troops that their involvement in Libya would
last a matter of days, not weeks. These men
[[Page S2542]]
and women, as we all acknowledge, are the finest fighting force in the
world. They can accomplish any mission given to them. But they can also
tell the difference between days and weeks. Our troops can tell that
they are still responsible for about 25 percent of the NATO support
missions in Libya. They hear the voices calling for NATO to expand its
operations. And then they know that any expansion of NATO's mission, in
scope or duration, puts more of them in harm's way. They simply deserve
more clarity, as do the American people.
So I think the Congress, on behalf of the American people, consistent
with our constitutional responsibilities and our shared power in
matters as serious as this, deserve a plan from the President of the
United States, so he can present it to us and we can have what we
sorely need, which is a genuine debate about our role in the future--
the way forward in Libya.
So what should that plan look like? I will make a few suggestions. I
believe a credible plan should contain a detailed description of U.S.
policy objectives in Libya both during and after Qaddafi's rule. It
should include a detailed plan to achieve those objectives. And
particularly in these times when we are struggling with enormous debt
and deficits, it should include a detailed estimate of the costs of
U.S. military operations in Libya and any other actions required to
implement the plan.
Congress, of course, has the responsibility for the federal purse
strings and would be asked to appropriate the money, so I think it is
entirely appropriate that the President present to us a plan that we
can debate and vote on in the form of an authorization.
I think a credible plan should also include a detailed description of
the limitations the President has placed on the nature, duration, and
scope of U.S. military operations in Libya--the limitations he referred
to in his letter of March 21 to Congress.
A plan from the President would, of course, be a catalyst for a long-
overdue debate right here in the Halls of what we call occasionally the
world's greatest deliberative body. But we cannot deliberate without
debate and without an honest appraisal of where we are and where we are
going. In fact, it is clear, just by referring back to the debate we
had on Iraq and Afghanistan, that the amount of time devoted in this
body to Libya is dwarfed by the fulsome debates we had over a period of
years relative to our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, what questions should a Senate debate over Libya hope to
address? Well, I can think of a few.
Was the Secretary of Defense correct when he said Libya is not a
vital interest for the United States?
Is the situation on the ground in Libya--as reported by the news--
basically now a stalemate? Remember that the initial U.S. commander of
coalition operations in Libya, General Carter Ham, testified before the
Armed Services Committee just last week. He agreed with that assessment
that it was essentially now a stalemate.
I think this is, to me, the simplest, the most direct question: If
the President's goal was to stop Qaddafi from killing Libyans,
civilians rebelling against him and protesting against his tyrannical
rule, how in the world do we stop the killing without stopping the
killer? That would be Muammar Qaddafi. How can we stop the killing of
civilians until we achieve the objective of removing him by any means
necessary?
I think it is also appropriate to inquire as to whether the Pottery
Barn rule applies in Libya. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once observed that, Once you
break it, you own it, the so-called Pottery Barn rule.
Has the administration's focus on Libya distracted it from our
ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both vital
interests? We have committed huge amounts of blood and treasure to
success in both of those countries, and I think Congress needs to know,
and we need to have a fulsome debate, about whether this mission in
Libya has distracted from those other two vital missions.
We also need to talk about whether NATO's performance in Libya has
jeopardized its effectiveness and reputation. Is there a risk that the
alliance is already splitting because of caveats or restrictions that
some of the coalition members are placing on their participation in the
ongoing intervention in Libya?
Finally, I think we need to know, because certainly everything that
happens becomes precedent for some future action, whether there is
something that one might call an ``Obama doctrine.'' Is it that the
United States will use military force when requested by our allies such
as France or, perhaps, international bodies such as the Arab League or
the United Nations, but not otherwise? Is it something like the United
States will protect civilians when they capture the world's media
attention, but ignore their suffering otherwise? Is it something that
explains why, for example, we are engaged in Libya but not engaged in
Syria?
Remember that Syria is a nation that is slaughtering its own
civilians--a humanitarian crisis, I would submit. It is a known state
sponsor of terrorism, so designated by the U.S. Department of State,
and it is a well-known and notorious conduit for arms from Iran to the
Lebanese Hezbollah. Whatever the Obama doctrine is, why doesn't it
apply to Syria? We need to ask those questions and I think we need and
deserve--and the American people even more so deserve--answers.
I believe our debate in the Senate should result in a vote on a
congressional authorization for the President's plan, whatever that is,
in Libya, but we ought to have a conversation, we ought to communicate,
we ought to have a consultation, not allow the President to treat
Congress like a potted plant when it comes to intervening in a foreign
nation in a military fashion. I believe the President should ask
Congress for an authorization, and I believe we should vote on one.
I certainly don't believe that what we have done so far, which is
pass a simple resolution without much notice or debate, is sufficient.
Frankly, I don't understand why some of my colleagues are so willing to
acquiesce to the President, thereby conceding to the executive branch
all authority in dealing with a matter of this gravity and seriousness.
I believe a robust debate about Libya would be good for the Senate,
it would be good for the House of Representatives, I think it would be
good for the American people, and I think it would be good for the
President. If the President takes action knowing that the American
people and the Congress are behind his plan, that is good for America,
and that is what we need.
I am afraid, though, that the President is taking the support of the
American people for granted. The American people instinctively want to
support our Commander in Chief, but history shows our military
operations are most successful when the people of the United States are
behind them. When the American people are not--when they become
disengaged or disillusioned--success becomes much more difficult, not
just in Libya but for future missions as well. I hope the President
will act in such a way that shows respect for Congress as a coequal
branch of government, and for the American people, who expect that
their representatives will debate questions of this gravity in the open
and ask the questions they themselves would ask before their sons and
daughters are put in danger. I hope the American people will have the
benefit of a vigorous debate on Libya in the Senate.
It is with that objective in mind that my colleagues and I have
submitted a resolution. I know there are other resolutions. I believe
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Massachusetts and the
Senator from Arizona have another one. I am advised that Senator Ensign
from Nevada and Senator Hutchison from Texas have another one. I think
we need to consider all of those views and have a debate and vote on
these issues.
____________________