[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4313-S4319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING THE LIMITED USE OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF THE
NATO MISSION IN LIBYA--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 88, S.J.
Res. 20.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is before the Senate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until
5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees
and that any time spent in a quorum call be equally divided. There is
already an order in effect that Republicans will be limited to 10
minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
International Trade
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, international trade is one of the best ways
to create more good-paying jobs for our people--as long as our workers
and our companies are treated fairly in the tough global markets in
which they compete.
That is not the case today. Chinese trade cheats, after being found
guilty of dumping their goods in America, now launder these goods by
illegally shipping them through Korea and other countries. This
illegality is undercutting our workers, undercutting our companies, and
is driving hard-working Americans out of jobs. All this is taking place
under the sleepy eyes of America's so-called trade enforcement
agencies.
Because this trade rip-off is growing and the Senate will soon take
up trade agreements that could fix this problem, I wish to take just a
few minutes this afternoon to make clear how this scam actually works.
The reason I have this information is because as chairman of the Senate
Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, my staff set up a dummy
company that intervened directly with suppliers in China in order to
learn firsthand how the Chinese firms brazenly shirk America's trade
laws.
First, after a thorough and substantial investigation, what happens
is that the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes antidumping duties on
certain Chinese merchandise that was shown to be dumped, which is to
say the merchandise is being sold at below-market prices. The next
thing that happens is the Chinese supplier of the merchandise is tagged
with the antidumping duties. Rather than stop selling and dumping goods
into the United States, the Chinese essentially shore up their American
buyers by soothingly conveying that these duties are not going to
impact their prices. The suppliers sometimes characterize complying
with U.S. trade law as merely a political issue.
After that, the Chinese goods are shipped into Korea, for example,
where the goods are repacked into boxes that say ``Made in Korea.'' The
documentation then follows the merchandise that is also going to be
altered or forged to suggest that the merchandise indeed originates in
Korea rather than China. From there, the merchandise enters our
country, often at the Port of Long Beach in California, and U.S.
Customs officials declare the goods to not be subject to antidumping
duties because, purportedly, if one looks at all the labeling, they
don't originate in China.
This transshipment is laundering, plain and simple, and it is a rip-
off of the American worker.
My concern is once the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement goes into
force, Korea would become a supermagnet for this kind of merchandise
laundering. Why would any Chinese supplier launder merchandise through
Singapore, for example, when doing so through Korea would bless their
merchandise with the duty-free status that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade
Agreement provides? The answer is obvious. They wouldn't.
That is why the Congress needs, through legislation, to send clear
instruction to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--and these
are our cops. They are the commercial cops at America's ports. They
need to be instructed about how to identify and combat the invasion of
America's trade laws. In my view, this is absolutely critical to
ensuring the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is not a tool that further
empowers unscrupulous Chinese exporters.
For almost a century, our trade laws, the antidumping and the
countervailing duties, have been enforced by Democratic and Republican
administrations. They represent the frontline defense that protects our
American workers. They are the laws that protect our businesses and our
families from unfair and unscrupulous trade practices employed by
foreign competition. But what we are seeing around the country is that
these antidumping and countervailing duties are being evaded, and the
problem is growing. What we have seen is, it takes years for the
government to look into and conclude investigations on merchandise
laundering. During this period of foot-dragging, our companies get
hammered by foreign trade cheats, and when the cheats get caught, the
enforcement agencies have almost never taken the steps necessary to
ensure that the duties that are owed are actually collected.
The discrepancy between how much the U.S. Government is owed by these
foreign trade cheats and how much is actually collected is
embarrassing. We are collecting something on the order of 20 percent of
what is owed to our government, and that is only from the companies
that actually got caught
[[Page S4314]]
and were prosecuted. The fact is, there are many more that are missed
every year.
So I hope colleagues, as we go to the trade debate, understand that
the point of trade agreements is, it is possible to export more of our
goods and services around the world. What we want in trade agreements
is to grow things here. We want to make things here. We want to add
value to them here, and we want to ship them somewhere. So we want to
export our goods and services, not export our jobs. But, unfortunately,
again and again, as a result of our competitors evading the trade laws,
we have a broken enforcement process.
That is why three Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate have
joined me in introducing a piece of legislation that puts the teeth
back in our trade laws. Senators Snowe and Blunt and McCaskill and
Brown of Ohio and Portman and Schumer and I all joined--three Democrats
and three Republicans--to introduce S. 1133.
This legislation requires Customs to quickly and transparently
investigate duty evasion. It requires the Customs agency to use
existing law to ensure that it can collect the correct duties on
merchandise. The legislation requires Customs to appropriately share
this information with other Federal agencies because we have seen,
again and again, that often one of the agencies doesn't talk to the
other. Finally, it requires the appropriate agencies to make sure that
in the future, they are going to report to the Congress promptly on
what is being done to fully address the problem.
Let me wrap up--I see colleagues on the floor--by simply saying that
I believe trade agreements create more jobs for our people, but the
fact is trade agreements without enforcement can cost our people jobs.
So this time, as the Congress goes forward with considering trade
legislation, it is important to show the American people that as our
trade agenda moves forward and moves forward aggressively in the days
ahead, instead of major trade competitors laundering merchandise, as we
have seen in our committee's investigation, to avoid the trade laws,
our trade laws would finally be fully enforced.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes to speak on
the resolution before us.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if the Chair would let me know, if I speak
for 8 minutes or longer, when I have 2 minutes left, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague from Mississippi
will yield at this time.
Mr. CORKER. Yes, sir. It is my understanding the Senator from
Mississippi wishes to speak for 2 minutes.
Mr. WICKER. Yes, I appreciate that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
The Federal Debt
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this weekend, a local newspaper in
Mississippi ran a lead editorial that wondered aloud whether the
cancellation of the Senate's Independence Day recess signaled a
``serious effort on the part of Senate leaders'' and the White House to
make headway in addressing the Federal debt. Regrettably, the answer to
that question is obviously no. For that reason, I wish to announce at
this point that I will be voting no this afternoon on the motion to
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a debate on Libya.
Clearly, Libya is an important issue. I am a member of the Armed
Services Committee. I have the greatest of respect for both my chairman
and the ranking member. But I will remind colleagues what the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said recently: The most important national
security issue facing the United States of America is the national debt
and we should not move to a vote on Libya and to a discussion on
Libya--which, frankly, is almost academic at this point--until we
debate the crucial issue facing the Senate; that is, the issue of the
national debt.
If we had a serious effort to talk about the national debt, in this
week of recess that has been canceled, we would be convening the Budget
Committee today and asking them to report a budget on the floor for the
first time in almost 800 days so we could have a debate on the floor
about the budget.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have another
minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WICKER. If the Senate majority were serious about their efforts
to reduce the Federal debt, the administration would not be continuing
its efforts to spend our way to prosperity. We would be bringing to the
floor a budget to cut spending, to make a serious effort against these
huge Federal deficits we are seeing. We would not be engaging in the
politics of fear. We would not be engaging in the politics of class
warfare. We would be getting to business this week. I hope that is what
we will do.
The only way I know to get that debate is to vote ``no'' on the
motion for cloture this afternoon. I think a number of my colleagues
will be doing so. If some 41 of us can muster a ``no'' vote on the
motion to invoke cloture, then we can have the debate on Libya at
another time and we can get today and this week to the one and only
reason we are back in town; that is, this debt that consumes us, that
threatens our national security, our national well-being and we are
called upon to debate by our colleagues and our constituents.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for
his comments.
As I mentioned, I rise to speak about S.J. Res. 20. I think there has
been some misinformation about what we are doing this afternoon. I know
the Acting President pro tempore and I were in a Foreign Relations
Committee meeting last week and offered several amendments that were
not passed. But many people have said what we are going to be debating,
possibly this evening--I hope we do not--is something the President has
asked for. The Acting President pro tempore, I know, knows differently.
The President did not ask for what it is we are going to be debating
this evening. The President earlier asked for a resolution of support
but not an authorization for this third war we are undertaking right
now in Libya. That is not what the President asked for.
As a matter of fact, the President, in a very cutely worded letter to
Congress, tried to state that we were not involved in hostilities in
Libya, and he did so in order to circumvent a law that has been on the
books now for many years called the War Powers Act. So the President is
not seeking what the Senate is getting ready to debate on the floor at
all. As a matter of fact, the President is trying to circumvent the War
Powers Act. So there is no question, in my opinion, the President
should be made to seek authorization.
But then that brings us to the issue at hand. There is no way
anything we do on the Senate floor--other than possibly pulling our
troops out of Libya, which is not what the resolution is about--is
going to affect anything we are doing in Libya one iota. Let me say
that one more time. If the resolution we are debating, possibly this
evening, were to actually be debated and passed, it would not affect
one iota of what we are doing in Libya. The fact is the House has
already turned down the same resolution. So, basically, we are burning
a week's time on something that is totally irrelevant to what is
happening in Libya and certainly irrelevant as it relates to what is
before us as a country.
As the Senator from Mississippi mentioned, the biggest issue facing
our country today is this issue of the debt ceiling and our debt, the
fact that we have $14.2 or $14.3 trillion in indebtedness, and we are
moving beyond that, the fact that we have $1.5 trillion in deficits
this year, the fact that we are spending $3.7 trillion and only have
$2.2 trillion, the fact that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar
we spend every day we are here, and that 47 percent of that is coming
from people overseas. That is the most important issue before us. That
is the reason we are back
[[Page S4315]]
here this week during the July recess. I am glad we are here. But we
need to focus on the issue at hand.
To speak to how dysfunctional the Senate is, we are here over the
debt ceiling, we are here over the fact that we have huge deficits, and
we do not have an agreement to deal with that. But instead of focusing
on the issue at hand, which is what most people back in Tennessee or
Virginia or some other place would do if they had a problem, we are
going to focus on something possibly that is irrelevant and has nothing
whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, just to make the American
people think we are doing something.
I also will vote against cloture this evening, and I am here on the
floor to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I have gotten
calls since I landed this morning from Tennessee, from Democratic
Senators who want to figure out a way to resolve this issue, from
people who understand that our country is heading for a train wreck as
it relates to our debt ceiling because there have not been serious
negotiations that have taken place.
So the Senator from Mississippi is right. Believe it or not, in a
body that spends $3.7 trillion a year, we have not had a budget in 797
days. I cannot believe that as a citizen. I certainly cannot believe
that as a Senator. I do not think most citizens in our country realize
we are spending, right now, $3.7 trillion of their money this year and
we do not even have a budget that is passed. One has not come out of
committee, a committee that, by the way--not to be pejorative here--has
a majority of people on the other side of the aisle who could easily,
if they wanted to, pass a budget out to the Senate floor to be debated.
I know sometimes things are difficult to get done around here. But
certainly it is difficult to address the No. 1 issue we have before us
in our country: these huge deficits which are creating this issue of
the debt ceiling that ``has to be raised.'' The fact is, again, we are
possibly, this evening, getting ready to move to an issue that is
totally irrelevant--very important and certainly something that has
been mishandled tremendously--but certainly something that, whatever
action we take this week in the Senate, is going to be unaffected. It
is not going to have any effect on it whatsoever other than Senators
feeling good about the fact that they did something that actually ends
up bearing no fruit.
I urge people on both sides of the aisle to vote against cloture to
take up this issue--that we are in a third war, a war the President
does not want to call a war by saying we are not involved in
hostilities. Obviously we are. We have Predators doing what Predators
do. We have aircraft bombing military installations. If North Korea
were in our country bombing military installations and using Predators
to do what Predators do, I think we would say that is hostilities. No
doubt we are involved in hostilities, and that issue should not be left
aside and undealt with. But, again, today, the big issue--the issue of
the day--is our debt ceiling. The issue is our debt. The issue is we do
not have a balanced budget. The issue is we do not have a fiscal
straitjacket to cause us to act responsibly. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' this evening for cloture. Let's
not take up an issue we will have no effect on, that has nothing to do
with the debt ceiling, and let's move to those kinds of issues that
will.
I know there is not a budget, unfortunately, to debate at present. It
is my understanding the chairman of the Budget Committee is going to
unveil some plans. That would be wonderful. There are some budget
process issues that are at least relevant to the topic at hand. So I
urge people to vote ``no'' this evening.
Mr. President, I thank you for the courtesy of time and yield the
floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand our leader, Senator McConnell,
is asking we speak for no more than 10 minutes, but I ask unanimous
consent that I be allowed to speak for 25 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
Mr. President, our debate today takes place in the context of deep
economic uncertainty at home, coupled with extraordinary dangers
overseas. Our country is suffering from high unemployment, with 9.1
percent of Americans out of work--many for years. Our national debt
stands well above $14 trillion, and our credit rating is in doubt. Gas
prices are still near $4 a gallon in many locations. The number of
Americans requiring food stamp assistance has reached 45 million. Some
businesses are returning to profitability but long-term economic growth
is threatened by numerous forces, including the skyrocketing national
debt, declining home values, high energy costs, and increased
competition for export markets.
Overseas, almost 100,000 American military personnel are fighting a
difficult war in Afghanistan. More than 1,600 of our troops have been
killed in Afghanistan, with roughly 12,000 wounded. Meanwhile, we still
have 46,000 troops in Iraq, a deployment that has cost almost 4,500
American lives, with more than 32,000 wounded. Our troops have
experienced multiple deployments over the last 8 years that have
strained our Armed Forces. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are
extremely high, with no resolution to the problem of North Korea's
nuclear program. We continue to pursue international support for steps
that could prevent Iran's nuclear program from producing a nuclear
weapon. We remain concerned about stability in Pakistan and the
security of that country's nuclear arsenal. We are attempting to
counter terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan, East Africa, Yemen,
and many other locations.
Into this confluence of economic and national security commitments,
the President has involved our Nation in a civil war in Libya. We find
ourselves in a situation where Congress is debating vast cuts in
domestic programs to make essential progress on the deficit, even as
President Obama has initiated an expensive, open-ended military
commitment in a country that his Defense Secretary said is not a vital
interest.
Any Member who has been here to witness the last 10 years should
understand that war is an inherently precarious enterprise that is
conducive to accidents, unintended consequences, and miscalculations.
The last 10 years have also illuminated clearly that initiating wars
and killing the enemy is far easier than achieving political stability
and reconstructing a country when the fighting is over.
This is why going to war should be based on U.S. vital interests. It
is also why Congress has an essential role to play in scrutinizing
executive branch rationalizations of wars and their ongoing management.
This holds true no matter who is President or which war is being
fought.
The President stated he intervened in Libya in conjunction with the
international community to save lives that would have been lost had
Qadhafi's forces been left unchecked. But saving lives alone cannot be
our standard for using military force. There is no end to the global
humanitarian emergencies in which U.S. military and economic power
might be devoted. Saying that American military power in Libya is
morally justified is not the same as saying it is wise. There are many
other questions that must be answered in a disciplined examination of
whether to go to war.
The administration placed much weight on expressions of approval by
the United Nations and the Arab League. It is better to have
international support than not when considering war. But neither of
those institutions is determinative to an assessment of U.S. vital
interests.
Even after Qadhafi leaves power, we will be at risk of substantial
costs. Already NATO has called for a U.N. peacekeeping force to be
deployed on the ground in Libya to help secure a transitional
government. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, the U.S.
probably will bear a significant share of that cost, even if no
American troops participate. What follows Qadhafi's regime will be a
true nation-building exercise. Despite massive natural resources, Libya
was a poor and largely undeveloped country before the first NATO bomb
fell. We have been assured that the Libyans will have the financial
resources to pay for this reconstruction effort, but we have heard
[[Page S4316]]
this assurance before. We have had ample experience during the last
decade with the difficulties of reconstructing nations in which we have
intervened.
In justifying our intervention in Libya's civil war, the President
has claimed that failure to do so would have emboldened other dictators
to resort to violence in the face of popular protests. At a minimum,
the unfolding tragedy in Syria is evidence that our intervention in
Libya has done little, if anything, to deter such repression.
In fact, I think it is more likely that dictators such as Bashar al-
Assad have learned the opposite lesson from the Libyan example. That
lesson is do not let an opposition force gain control of territory or
the West might intervene to protect it from the sky. Is this the
thinking behind the Syrian government's brutal military takeover of the
cities along its border with Turkey? At the same time, our Libyan
involvement has made it more difficult to obtain Security Council
action of any sort, even rhetorical, against the Syrian regime.
American intervention in Libya did not come as a result of a
disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization
debate in Congress. In the broader strategic context that I have
described, a civil war in Libya is not a priority that required
American military and economic investments. It is an expensive
diversion that leaves the United States and our European allies with
fewer assets to respond to other contingencies.
President Obama's assertion that he does not need a congressional
authorization to wage war in Libya represents a serious setback to the
constitutional limits on Presidential war powers. Historians will point
out that this is not the first time that a President has gone to war
unilaterally. But saying that Presidents have exceeded their
constitutional authority before is little comfort. Moreover, the Libya
case is the one most likely to be cited the next time President Obama
or a future President chooses to take the country to war without
congressional approval.
Declarations of war are not anachronistic exercises. They force the
President to submit his case for war to Congress and the American
public. They allow for a robust debate to examine that case, and they
help gauge if there is sufficient political support to commit American
blood and treasure. And they define the role and strategy of the United
States. Neither U.N. Security Council resolutions nor administration
briefings are a substitute for a declaration of war or other deliberate
authorizations of military operations.
Actions leading up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at least
acknowledged that congressional authorization was vital to initiating
and conducting war. Despite deep flaws in the process of authorizing
those wars, there was recogition that both required a deliberate
affirmative vote by Congress.
During this debate there will be appeals to set aside discussion of
war powers issues in favor of expressing support for the military
mission underway. We will be asked to send a message to Colonel
Qadhafi, notwithstanding our displeasure with President Obama's
unilateralism.
I understand that one can be for the Libya mission while
simultaneously being critical of the President's failure to involve
Congress in his decisionaking. But I also believe that it would be
difficult to render a judgment on the Libya operation without reference
to the process failures that have preceded this debate, for two
reasons. First, in the long run, the significance of the war powers
precedent created by President Obama's unilateral intervention in Libya
and his subsequent rationalization for not needing congressional
authority may be far more significant than the short term geopolitical
consequences of what happens in Libya. Second, we are debating an
authorization that the President has taken no affirmative action to
seek, that he asserts is not necessary under the Constitution or the
War Powers Act, and that presumably will have little impact on his
actions.
Even if one believes that the President somehow had the legal
authority to initiate and continue U.S. military operations in Libya,
it does not mean that going to war without Congress was either wise or
helpful to the operation. There was no good reason why President Obama
should have failed to seek congressional authorization to go to war in
Libya. A few excuses have been offered ranging from an impending
congressional recess to the authority provided by U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1973. But these excuses do not justify the President's lack
of constitutional discipline. Twelve days before the United States
launched hostilities I called for the President to seek a declaration
of war before taking military action. The Arab League resolution, which
is cited as a key event in calculations on the war, was passed a full
week before we started launching cruise missiles. There was time to
seek congressional approval, and Congress would have debated a war
resolution if the President had presented one.
That debate would not have been easy. But Presidents should not be
able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging
the people's representatives is inconvenient or uncertain. If the
outcome of a congressional vote on war is in doubt, it is all the more
reason why a President should seek a debate. If he does not, he is
taking the extraordinary position that his plans for war are too
important to be upset by a disapproving vote in Congress.
The Founders believed that Presidents alone should not be trusted
with war making authority, and they constructed checks against
executive unilateralism. James Madison, in a 1797 letter to Thomas
Jefferson, stated, ``The Constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power
most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with
studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.''
Clearly, there are circumstances under which a President might be
justified in employing military force without congressional
authorization. But as Senator Jim Webb has pointed out systematically,
none of the reasons apply to the Libyan case.
Our country was not attacked or threatened with an attack. We weren't
obligated under a treaty to defend the Libyan people. We were not
rescuing Americans or launching a one-time punitive retaliation. Nor
did the operation require surprise that would have made a public debate
impractical.
In this case, President Obama made a deliberate decision not to seek
a congressional authorization of his action, either before it commenced
or during the last 3 months. This was a fundamental failure of
leadership that placed expedience above constitutional responsibility.
Moreover, the highly dubious arguments offered by the Obama
administration for not needing congressional approval break new ground
in justifying a unilateral Presidential decision to use force. The
accrual of even more war making authority in the hands of the Executive
is not in our country's best interest, especially at a time when our
Nation is deeply in debt and our military is heavily committed
overseas.
At the outset of the conflict, the President asserted that U.S.
military operations in Libya would be ``limited in their nature,
duration, and scope.'' Three months later, these assurances ring
hollow. American and coalition military activities have expanded to an
all but declared campaign to drive Qadhafi from power. The
administration is unable to specify any applicable limits to the
duration of the operations. And the scope has grown from efforts to
protect Libyan civilians under imminent threat to obliterating Libya's
military arsenal, command and control structure, and leadership
apparatus.
Most recently, the administration has sought to avoid its obligations
under the War Powers resolution by making the incredible assertion that
U.S. military operations in Libya do not constitute hostilities, a view
that has been rejected by many supporters of the war.
Let us be clear that we are deliberately trying to overthrow the
government of Libya with military force. We were instrumental in
putting the alliance together, we were the major force behind the U.N.
resolution authorizing the war, we set the table for the NATO operation
through an intensive bombing campaign to open the war, our planes and
drones continue to bomb Libya, and most missions flown by allied pilots
are dependent on the
[[Page S4317]]
intelligence and refueling capabilities that we are providing. The
means that we are using to overthrow the Libyan government are limited
in the sense that we could be applying more military force to the task,
but the goal of the operation is not limited. We are using military
force to achieve regime change. Defining these actions as something
less than hostilities requires extraordinary legal contortions.
Administration analysis focuses on the question of whether U.S.
casualties are likely to occur, thereby minimizing other considerations
relevant to the use of force. Such an interpretation would deny
Congress a say in other questions that are obviously implicated in
decisions to go to war, including the war's impact on U.S. strategic
interests, on our relations with other countries, and on our ability to
meet competing national security priorities.
The administration also implies that because allied nations are
flying most of the missions over Libya, the U.S. operations are not
significant enough to require congressional authorization. This
characterization underplays the centrality of the U.S. contribution to
the NATO operations in Libya. We are contributing 70 percent of the
coalition's intelligence capabilities and the majority of its refueling
assets. The fact that we are leaving most of the shooting to other
countries does not mean that the United States is not involved in acts
of war. If the United States encountered persons performing similar
activities in support of al Qaida or Taliban operations, we certainly
would deem them to be participating in hostilities against us.
This state of affairs is at odds with the President's own
pronouncements on war powers during his Presidential candidacy. For
example, in December 2007, he responded to a Boston Globe question by
saying: ``The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.''
American combat forces are so efficient at certain types of
operations and our over-the-horizon technology is so potent that the
use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous
temptation for Presidents. If we fail to come to grips with this now, I
fear that we are setting the stage for Presidents to undertake other
humanitarian interventions without congressional approval.
The President does not have the authority to substitute his judgment
for constitutional process when there is no emergency that threatens
the United States and our vital interests. The world is full of
examples of local and regional violence, to which the U.S. military
could be applied for some altruistic purpose. Under the Constitution,
the Congress is vested with the authority to determine which, if any,
of these circumstances justify the consequences of American military
intervention.
The Foreign Relations Committee markup of S.J. Res. 20 significantly
improved the resolution in several key respects. First, the committee
adopted amendments that Senator Webb and I introduced, establishing
legally binding prohibitions on the introduction of American ground
troops and contractors into Libya. The original resolution addressed
this issue only through nonbinding language that the President could
have ignored.
Second, the committee adopted an amendment I offered requiring
specific reports on the Libya operation from the administration on
strict deadlines. These deadlines were strengthened further by an
amendment from Senator Bob Corker. The original resolution lacked
sufficient provisions for congressional oversight of the operations,
their costs, and their potential impact on other U.S. national security
objectives.
Third, I offered an amendment specifying that the War Powers
resolution applies to current U.S. military operations in Libya, and
that continuation of those operations requires congressional
authorization. This was adopted by acclamation after Members on both
sides delivered statements supporting the amendment. In doing so, the
committee repudiated the administration's contention that U.S.
operations in Libya do not constitute ``hostilities'' and therefore are
not subject to the War Powers resolution.
Fourth, the committee adopted a sense of the Congress amendment
stating that postwar reconstruction costs should be borne primarily by
the Libyan people and Arab League nations.
Even with the success of these amendments, S.J. Res. 20 remains
overly broad, despite its stated purpose of authorizing a limited use
of force. Specifically, it contains no meaningful limits on the use of
American air assets over Libya.
This resolution clearly would give the President the authority to
escalate the American role in the bombing campaign. I understand that
some Members of the Senate may favor that course. But Members who have
concerns about a re-escalation of the U.S. combat role should
understand that passage of the resolution not only gives the President
that authority, it makes such a re-escalation more likely.
The defining limitation in S.J. Res. 20 is U.N. Security Council
resolution 1973, which calls on nations to protect Libyan civilians.
Effectively, any use of airpower consistent with this U.N. resolution
is permitted under S.J. Res. 20. Using resolution 1973 as
justification, the President already engaged in an intensive bombing
campaign against Libyan targets at the beginning of our intervention.
By definition, the administration and our allies would regard S.J. Res.
20 as permitting at least the intensity of American bombing that was
undertaken in the first week of the war.
Moreover, President Obama publicly has defined the removal of Colonel
Qadhafi as in the interest of protecting Libyan civilians. From the
administration's point of view, almost any airstrike that degrades
Libyan military capabilities or contributes in some way to the
potential for the ouster of Qadhafi can be justified as contributing to
the protection of civilians. This could include the use of slower fixed
wing aircraft flying close air support missions and perhaps
helicopters.
Passage of this resolution does not guarantee that there will be a
full-scale re-escalation, but if President Obama is armed with this
resolution and if the Libyan operation drags on, it is almost
inevitable that the American role in Libya will expand. We know that
some of our allies are running short of munitions. We also know that
public opinion in some allied nations may trend against continuing this
mission. Our military is the best and most capable in the world. If the
President has this broad authorization from Congress in hand, allies
will be far more confident that the United States will pick up the
slack if they withdraw or limit their participation. In a recent press
conference, the President said, ``There's no risks of additional
escalation.'' But the only barrier to escalation would be the decision-
making of the President himself.
I do not believe that our intervention in the Libyan civil war was
prudent in the context of U.S. vital interests. I continue to be
concerned that the U.S. role in Libya will escalate, that Libya
reconstruction burdens could fall on our country, and that the Libyan
operation siphons attention and resources away from more important
national security priorities. I cannot support the broad mandate that
this resolution would give to the President to expand U.S. military
activities over Libya. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing
adoption of S.J. Res. 20.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to just briefly say that
the matter of the merits of the Libya resolution the majority leader
wants to move to is not something I am addressing at this point. It is
a significant issue, and good Senators can disagree about that, but the
reason we are here this week is because 46 Senators from the Republican
side objected to the Memorial Day recess, because we have done nothing
on the budget, and were clearly going to object again when it came to
the Fourth of July because we have the debt ceiling issue that we are
told creates an emergency by August 2.
We haven't passed a budget in 797 days. The Democratic majority has
not
[[Page S4318]]
even brought one to the floor in that time. The country is spending
itself into decline and damaging our future. We know that. It has been
talked about for months. We have had no discussion in the Budget
Committee, of which I am ranking member, about marking up any kind of
budget this year. The Budget Act in the United States Code says we
should pass the budget by April 15. So the objection I and others had
to going home and recessing this week was not in order to discuss the
Libya resolution; it was to get to work now to confront the financial
situation we are in.
We are not going to be serving our constituents well if some sort of
secret agreement comes to fruition and a bill is plopped down on the
Senate floor on August 1 that has to be passed by August 2. That is not
responsible. It is not acceptable. Even the President understands that.
Last week, he said this:
And so there's no point in procrastinating. There's no
point in putting it off. We've got to get this done. And if
by the end of this week, we have not seen substantial
progress, then I think members of Congress need to understand
we are going to start having to cancel things and stay here
until we get it done.
He is talking about spending--debt, the debt ceiling, the limit on
the amount of money the U.S. Government can borrow. That is what he
said last week. And that is what we have been saying for over a month.
Regardless of how one feels about the Libya resolution, that is not
what we need to be doing this week. The letter we wrote to Senator Reid
concerning the Memorial Day recess said this. This was a month ago.
Until a budget plan is made public, and until that plan is
scheduled for committee action, on what basis can the Senate
justify returning home for a 1-week vacation and recess when
our spending and debt continue to spiral dangerously out of
control?
That is what we said then and it remains true now. This Congress is
acting in an irresponsible manner and it is not healthy for us. I am
beginning to wonder if the Senate is, in fact, beginning to lose its
reason for being. Are we supposed to just sit here and wait for two,
three, four, or five people to meet in secret and then tell us at the
eleventh hour that we have to pass a bill? Is that legislating? Is that
what Congress should do?
We certainly are in violation of the Budget Act, which says a budget
should be marked up in the Budget Committee by April 1 and passed by
April 15. We haven't even called one up, and we haven't passed one in
797 days.
I recall, as we make the decision on our vote today, what Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen said recently, which is that
the greatest threat to our national security is the debt. That is what
he said. The President has not asked for a Libyan resolution. It is not
something he cares about, apparently. He hasn't asked for it. He
doesn't consider it important.
I will tell you one thing we have to do: We have to fulfill our
responsibility as a Congress, as the people who control the purse. That
is our ultimate constitutional responsibility. We are not fulfilling it
and, therefore, I urge my colleagues not to move to the Libyan
resolution but to send a message to our Democratic leadership that we
insist on moving toward solving the financial crisis this Nation faces.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as of now, we are scheduled to vote on
a motion to proceed to S.J.R. 20 regarding Libya. We have been called
into session--having made plans to spend this week in our States
meeting with constituents, as we try to do at least once a month--
because there is a budget crisis in this country, because we have a
debt ceiling of over $14 trillion that is getting ready to be hit and
we need to focus on that and that alone during this week. We have been
talking about it, we have been talking around it, but, honestly, we
don't seem to be making much progress. If we are going to do anything
this week, we should be talking about how we are going to address this
issue.
This is what is on the minds of the people of our country today. I
was home over the weekend, having just gotten back, and everyone I
talked to is scared to death about this debt, about what is going to
happen. People think there does need to be significant change, reform,
a different way of doing business than borrowing and borrowing and
borrowing. They are also concerned about hitting the debt ceiling and
not lifting it. They are wondering what in the heck we are going to do.
So now we are back here in session because of that crisis, and
somehow we are talking about Libya. Libya is important. It is important
because there are American troops, part of a coalition that was put
there by the President without consulting Congress, and now there is a
resolution, which, frankly, I cannot support. I will not give the
President authority to continue. I think we need a full and fair
debate. But now is not the time to be doing this, when we are 4 weeks
away from a potential debt crisis that could affect the people in our
country right now--people who depend on our government to function--as
well as our global standing.
So let's talk about what we could do. What we could do is produce a
budget. It has been 797 days or so since the Senate has passed a budget
resolution. So we haven't set the level of spending and the priorities
for spending that are our constitutional responsibility. It is
Congress's responsibility to pass a budget. We haven't passed a budget
in almost 2 years--almost 2 years.
We have to do that because we are coming up on--in about 3 months--
the end of a fiscal year. We should be passing appropriations bills
that are based on a budget. But we don't have a budget. So I would say,
let's get back to basics. When you have a big problem, you go back to
the basics, where you have to start to solve a problem. And the basics
are a budget. I think we all agree if we get a budget on the floor
there is going to be a lot of amendments. There is going to be a lot of
amendments to a budget resolution. Let's get started. Let's use this
week to produce a budget resolution and let's start having the
amendments about spending levels, about spending priorities. That will
be a way we can start the process of determining if we can, in fact,
lift the debt ceiling.
There are significant cuts in spending we can make as a country that
would show the rest of the world--those holding our debt, as well as
the American people who are living with this government and holding
part of the debt--that we are serious; that we are going to get our
financial house in order, and we are going to do it with a budget
resolution that cuts spending and sets priorities as every family and
every business in this country is required to do. Most States, by the
way, are required to do it as well. A few don't, and we see them sort
of ambling over toward the ``B'' word--bankruptcy--which is just not a
possibility. That is not a possibility for this country. We need to
take the reins right now to assure the world knows we are not going to
handle our fiscal responsibilities by continuing to borrow when we know
we don't have the revenue coming in to pay for all these programs.
So I am going to vote against cloture today. I am going to vote
against cloture, along with, I know, many people for different reasons.
Some people are voting against cloture because they do not think we
ought to be giving the President the authority to continue going into
another country's civil war when we have such commitments in
Afghanistan and Iraq, when we are overdeploying our troops, when we are
spending money that we are having to borrow, when we are taking the
lion's share of this responsibility for our allies. Many of us think we
shouldn't be adding another country, where it is supposed to be a
support function, when we all know that is what leads to something
more, and then something more. I thought Senator Lugar said it very
well when he said that then you have the aftermath of the end of a
civil war and the responsibilities for that. This is not the time, in
my opinion, to be giving that kind of authority to the President.
But above that--above that--we are here because there is a crisis
upon which I think we have a united view of
[[Page S4319]]
the goal, and that is to put our fiscal house in order. But we are not
united in the Senate about how to do it. So let's have that debate this
week. Let's have that debate that says we should be spending more or we
should be spending less; that we should be taxing more or taxing less,
because we have real disagreements on that.
I am in the spend less, tax less group, but there are views that are
differing. Let's put it out there and start the debate. Because if we
have a budget resolution, then everything can be solved from there. If
we have a budget resolution that we can agree is the right amount of
spending for the debt crisis we are in, then we will know the way
forward to dealing with the debt crisis. That is a real possibility,
and that is what we ought to be talking about.
I will not support cloture on a motion to proceed to a Libya
agreement that says the President can continue the involvement. I think
we need to deal with the crisis that Congress has a say in doing.
Certainly Congress had a say in producing it, and we are the ones
responsible to the American people for solving the problem that has
been created.
I urge my colleagues not to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed
to the Libya resolution and, instead, turn to the budget, put a budget
resolution out, and, for the first time in almost 2 years, we can begin
to talk together to solve this problem by passing a budget resolution
that will lower spending and hopefully keep taxes low so our fragile
economy can continue on the path toward improvement, that would have
businesses feel confident to hire people, rather than putting obstacles
in place, and get this unemployment rate of over 9 percent off the
books. That would be the answer for this week, in my opinion.
I hope the majority leader will turn to the budget and let's solve
the crisis at hand. I think that is why we are in session this week.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate was scheduled today at 5 p.m. to
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the
bipartisan Libya resolution, which is sponsored by Senators Kerry,
McCain, Levin, Kyl, Durbin, Feinstein, Graham, and others. I spoke with
the Republican leader just a short time ago, and we have agreed that,
notwithstanding the broad support for the Libya resolution, the most
important issue for us to focus on this week is the budget. So we will
work to set up the vote on the sense-of-Senate resolution that I have
offered on shared sacrifice and perhaps a Republican alternative as
well. Meetings are in process now and will continue on the debt limit
and on larger budget matters throughout the Capitol and I am confident
everyone knows the White House is involved.
I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion, with respect to the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 88, S.J. Res. 20, be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I withdraw my motion to proceed to Calendar No. 88, S.J.
Res. 20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________