[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3617-S3620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Corker):
  S.J. Res. 18. A joint resolution prohibiting the deployment, 
establishment, or maintenance of a presence of units and members of the 
United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the Senate floor, 
along with my colleague, Senator Corker, a fellow member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, to speak about a joint resolution we are 
introducing today that deals with the situation in Libya.
  This is introduced as a joint resolution rather than as an amendment 
on the current legislation because I believe this matter is serious 
enough that our body should actually consider this as a stand-alone 
piece of legislation and coordinate it with the House and get this 
passed with due speed.
  This resolution, first of all, contains a statement of policy that 
American Armed Forces should be used exclusively to defend and advance 
our national security interests.
  Second, it prohibits the deployment, establishment, or maintenance of 
ground troops in Libya, with two notable exceptions. The first would be 
for the purpose of the immediate personal defense of American 
Government officials, including diplomatic representatives, which I 
believe would be an important exclusion once and if we decide to 
conduct negotiations or reestablish our Embassy inside Libya. The other 
exception would be for the purpose of rescuing members of our Armed 
Forces who would be in Libya and would be under imminent danger.
  It also prohibits the awarding of a contract to private security 
contractors to conduct, establish, or maintain any activities on the 
ground in Libya.
  This language in section 2 is similar to language that passed the 
House last week with a vote of 416 to 5.
  Section 3 includes a sense of Congress that the President should 
request congressional authorization for the continuation of American 
involvement in

[[Page S3618]]

ongoing activities in Libya, and that the Congress, in its 
constitutional role, should debate and consider this matter 
expeditiously.
  Sections 4 and 5 require the transmission of information to the 
Congress on a wide variety of information that, to this point, we have 
not been properly included on. That language, in some form, passed the 
House last Friday with a vote of 268 to 145.
  Again, I appreciate very much Senator Corker joining me as the 
principal cosponsor of this joint resolution.
  I would like to explain why I believe it is important we take this 
measure as a body, as a Congress, in response to the actions the 
President took in Libya nearly 3 months ago.
  First, we know, and we are reminded every day, that our economy is 
going through a terrible crisis, even as we are expending hundreds of 
billions of dollars every year on wars in the most vitriolic and 
contentious parts of the world.
  Second, our military has been engaged in continuous combat operations 
for nearly 10 years. We still have 45,000 military members in Iraq 
despite a stated commitment for a full withdrawal by the end of this 
year. We have about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, and the prospect for 
a meaningful withdrawal in the short term does not look good.
  When we examine the conditions under which the President ordered our 
military into action in Libya, we are faced, in my view, with the 
prospect of a very troubling, if not downright odd, historical 
precedent that has the potential to haunt us for decades.
  The issue in play is not simply whether the President should ask the 
Congress for a declaration of war, nor is it wholly about whether the 
President has violated the edicts of the War Powers Act, which, in my 
view, he clearly has. The issue for us to consider is whether a 
President--any President--can unilaterally begin, and continue, a 
military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the 
demanding standards of a vital national interest worthy of risking 
American lives and expending billions of dollars of our taxpayers' 
money.
  What was the standard in this case? The initial justification was 
that a dictator might retaliate against people who rebelled against 
him. I do not make light of the potential tragedy involved in such a 
possibility, although it should be pointed out that there are a lot of 
dictators in this world and very few democracies in this particular 
region, which gives this standard a pretty broad base if a President 
decides to use it again. Then, predictably, once military operations 
began in Libya, the stated goal became regime change, with combat now 
having dragged on for nearly 3 months.
  So in a world filled with cruelty, the question becomes whether a 
President--any President--should be able to pick and choose when and 
where to use military force using such a vague standard. Actually that 
is the most important question. Given our system of government, who 
should decide? Even if a President should unilaterally decide on the 
basis of overwhelming, vital national interests that requires immediate 
action, how long should that decision be honored, and to what lengths 
should our military go before the matter is able to come under the 
proper scrutiny and boundaries of our Congress?
  Let's review the bidding. What did it look like when our President 
ordered our military into action in Libya, and what has happened since? 
Was our country under attack or under the threat of an imminent attack? 
Was a clearly vital national interest at stake? Were we invoking the 
inherent right of self-defense as outlined in the United Nations 
charter? Were we called upon by treaty commitments to come to the aid 
of an ally? Were we responding in kind to an attack on our forces 
elsewhere as we did in the 1986 raids in Libya when I was in the 
Pentagon, after American soldiers had been killed in a disco in Berlin? 
Were we rescuing Americans in distress as we did in Grenada in 1983? 
No, we were not.
  The President followed no clear historical standard when he 
unilaterally decided to use force in Libya. Once this action continued 
beyond his original definition of ``days, not weeks,'' he did not seek 
the approval of Congress. While he has discussed this matter with some 
Members of Congress, he has not formally conferred with the legislative 
branch.
  I believe it is appropriate to question on whose behalf this 
continuing action is being taken, and, most importantly at this point, 
what is going to be asked of our military in the coming months, 
assuming the Qadhafi regime does fall? This is not even a civil war.
  As Secretary of Defense Gates commented to me when I asked him that 
question during a hearing on the Armed Services Committee recently: You 
don't have a civil war when there is no clearly formed opposition 
movement. It has been a random rebellion. We can empathize with the 
frustrations of this rebellion, but looking into the future, the only 
thing the opponents of the present regime all seem to agree on is that 
Qadhafi should go.
  As I have said repeatedly over the past few months, this matters 
greatly when one considers what the aftermath of this action could 
entail for the international community.
  An additional curiosity is that we still recognize this regime even 
as we have been participating for nearly 3 months in actions designed 
to destroy it. I have raised this matter repeatedly with our State 
Department. We have not severed relations with this regime, nor have we 
recognized a successor regime. We have merely suspended our relations. 
So we are looking at something of a historical anomaly. We are 
participating in attacks on a regime that we recognize, on behalf of 
rebel forces that are so amorphous that we don't, and we really do not 
know what is going to replace the regime that we recognize once it is 
gone.
  Obviously, I am not raising these points out of any lasting love for 
Mr. Qadhafi or any hopes that he continues in his present position. But 
let's be very clear. This is a region rife with tribalism, fierce 
loyalties, and brutal retaliation. In this part of the world the lust 
for revenge upon those who try to destroy you is not a characteristic 
that is unique to Mr. Qadhafi. Whether Qadhafi stays or falls, that is 
very likely going to be the future at some level in Libya, and this is 
not a place for American troops to be sent in order to sort out this 
mess. If other nations decide to do so, I certainly have no objection. 
But our military is stretched too thin, our economy is too fragile, and 
the reasons for us to continue in this effort are too ill-defined.
  So it is important for the Congress to step in and to clearly define 
the boundaries of our involvement. We should be saying without 
hesitation that no American ground personnel should be introduced into 
Libya, now or in the future. We should also be insisting on fair and 
open communication from this administration to the Congress rather than 
the stonewalling that has characterized the past 3 months.
  This is not a political issue for me. Rather, it is an issue of how 
our government is structured. I would submit that this issue has 
historical consequences. Our three branches of government were 
carefully designed by the Founding Fathers to guard against hasty 
decisions or judgments that would not be fully in our national 
interest. For centuries, the English monarchs had been able to wage 
wars of choice, with the only restriction being whether Parliament 
would raise enough taxes to fund their adventurous armies. Our Founding 
Fathers said no. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately gave the 
Congress the specific power to rein in such conduct and to protect our 
people from unwise choices by insisting on a democratic consensus.
  The structure of international relations has become much more complex 
since then, but the principle is still vital, and it still must hold.
  Over the past 10 years, in pursuit of a workable formula with which 
to defend our Nation against legitimate threats, we have allowed the 
balance of power in our constitutional system to tilt far too heavily 
to the executive branch. There could be no clearer example of why the 
Congress must finally say ``enough is enough'' than the situation we 
now face in Libya. We must clearly say, as a governing body, that there 
are boundaries on the conduct of a President--any President--when it 
comes to his or her unilateral decision to use military force. We 
should be clear that American military forces--in uniform or not--do 
not belong on the ground in Libya.

[[Page S3619]]

  We should make it clear that we will not be deterred in requests for 
information that allow us to perform our responsibilities. To do less 
than that would bring us back in time, to a system of government our 
forefathers risked their lives to improve upon. We are not the 
Parliament of King Charles. I believe my fellow Members would agree 
that our role as a legislative body is more than that of collecting 
taxes so that the President--any President--can raise armies and fight 
wars of his own choosing. And that is why I am asking every Senator to 
support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia, the former Secretary of the Navy, in the 
introduction of this joint resolution, along with Senator Lee from 
Utah. I look forward to a debate of this resolution next week which I 
hope will end up passing both bodies and which calls for a number of 
answers we have been requesting to come forth.
  I wish to discuss the ongoing situation in Libya where--specifically 
U.S. participation in NATO military operations authorized by the United 
Nations' Security Council resolution passed on March 17, 2011. For 
those of you listening, you heard me correctly. It was authorized by 
the United Nations, not the U.S. Congress. We are spending roughly $2 
million per day on a mission on which the President has yet to broadly 
consult Congress.
  I find it unbelievable that the President would seek the approval of 
the United Nations and the Arab League for military operations over 
Libya while sidelining the body that speaks for the American people, 
not even answering our questions. This is not consultation, nor is the 
President heeding the concerns of his own constituents.
  For many weeks now, I and many colleagues, for that matter, have 
attempted to gain answers to some of the most basic questions about 
what we are doing in Libya. Through hearings in the Foreign Relations 
Committee, we have not received these answers. We have asked for 
specific witnesses and received no response. This is not consultation.
  In my ongoing attempts to receive answers to these questions, I sent 
a letter to Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates on April 14, 2011, 
specifically outlining five questions. I have the letter here and ask 
unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2011.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert M. Gates,
     Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates: It has now been 
     nearly one month since the United States first engaged in 
     coalition operations in Libya. Since that time, there has 
     been relatively infrequent information sharing with the 
     Congress regarding the full scope of U.S. involvement in the 
     conflict. Administration officials have assured Congress that 
     the United States was playing only a supporting role in 
     ongoing operations in Libya, and those operations did not 
     include kinetic operations. Yesterday, April 13, 2011, it was 
     revealed during a Pentagon briefing that three U.S. aircraft 
     assigned to NATO had fired ordnance. This seems contradictory 
     to the information we have previously received and is an 
     example of the disconnect between Congress and the 
     administration on the nature of the U.S. role in Libya. To 
     that end, I ask that you provide the following:
       (1) A full accounting of U.S. assets assigned to the 
     mission and how they are being utilized.
       (2) Requests the U.S. has received from coalition partners 
     and Libyan opposition forces for materiel and support--both 
     fulfilled and denied.
       (3) The contents of additional U.S. offers of assistance.
       (4) Plans to offer additional assistance to Libyan 
     opposition forces.
       (5) All meetings that the administration has engaged in 
     with coalition partners, the Libya contact group and the 
     Libyan opposition forces to discuss the operations and 
     political future of Libya.
       I thank you for your service to our country, and I look 
     forward to your prompt reply to my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Corker,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today, 1 day shy of 8 weeks later, I 
finally received a response. This response did not come from Secretary 
Clinton. It did not come from Secretary Gates. This response came from 
the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs and 
only paid lipservice to one of my five specific requests for 
information.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this ``nonresponse'' printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2011.
     Hon. Bob Corker,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Corker: Thank you for your letter of April 14 
     regarding the State Department's effort to assist the 
     coalition and support the people of Libya. The past three 
     months have demonstrated Colonel Qadhafi's unrelenting 
     efforts to kill those who wish to instill democracy in Libya 
     and the use of barbarous, indiscriminant bombing of cities 
     and vital civilian infrastructure. These acts further 
     delegitimize Qadhafi as a leader of the Libyan people.
       The State Department is working to ensure the coalition 
     remains united behind the goal of protecting the people of 
     Libya. We continue to work closely with coalition and 
     regional governments to isolate Qadhafi and create support 
     for the opposition. This effort includes the termination of 
     diplomatic status for Libyan diplomats still supporting the 
     regime and the freezing of all regime assets. As the 
     situation evolves, we continue to evaluate further options to 
     increase pressure on Qadhafi to step down. We are also 
     considering options to provide the opposition the financial 
     wherewithal it needs to support itself.
       Along with looking at multiple ways to increase pressure on 
     the Qadhafi regime, the State Department is looking at better 
     ways to provide humanitarian assistance to civilians in 
     conflict areas. We are assessing options for assistance we 
     could provide to the Libyan people and are consulting 
     directly with the opposition and our international partners. 
     Some aid has been identified; the President directed up to 
     $25 million in non-lethal items from U.S. government stocks, 
     including medical supplies, uniforms, boots, tents, personal 
     protective gear, and prepackaged rations.
       We continue working with the international community to 
     determine the best way to support the Transitional National 
     Council (TNC) in meeting its financial needs. The May 5 Libya 
     Contact Group meeting in Rome endorsed the creation of a 
     Temporary Financial Mechanism, which will help facilitate and 
     coordinate financial assistance. Additionally, the United 
     States is providing $53.5 million in humanitarian assistance 
     to support people affected by the crisis.
       Chris Stevens, U.S. Envoy to the TNC, remains in Benghazi 
     and continues to hold productive meetings with high-level 
     members of the TNC. In addition to Secretary Clinton's 
     meetings with TNC leadership, Mr. Stevens regularly meets 
     with senior TNC leaders to better understand the steps they 
     are undertaking to build a democracy based on universal 
     principles of respect for human rights and rule of law. While 
     we are working closely with the TNC, we also continue to meet 
     with a broad spectrum of Libyans involved in the opposition 
     writ large.
       Thank you again for your interest and support for Libya. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact us again if we can be of 
     further assistance on this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,

                                           Joseph E. MacManus,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this is unacceptable. This is an 
unacceptable way to treat a coequal branch of the U.S. Government that 
is granted certain responsibilities to our Armed Forces by the Founders 
of our country. Without these answers, Members of Congress are unable 
to assess critical questions and debate whether we should continue to 
engage in military operations in Libya.
  That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Webb and 
Senator Lee, in introducing S.J. Res. 18 today. This is a joint 
resolution drawing on language that already passed the House of 
Representatives last week, and it requires the President to answer 21 
questions critical to determining whether engagement in Libya is in the 
vital national interest of the United States.
  This joint resolution further expresses the sense of Congress that 
the President should request authorization from Congress for the 
continuation of U.S. involvement in ongoing NATO activities in Libya.

[[Page S3620]]

  It says Congress should fully debate and consider such a request in 
an expedient manner. I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who 
would not like to debate this issue on the floor, regardless of how 
they may feel about this conflict. We owe it to every man and woman who 
puts on a uniform to serve our country and to every taxpayer who funds 
the operation to be clear that our entry into any conflict has been 
thoughtfully considered, contains clear justification, a clear mission, 
and a clear debate of the risks and benefits. The information sought by 
this joint resolution will help us meet those obligations.
  I look forward to the Senate considering this joint resolution in the 
near future--hopefully next week.

                          ____________________