[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6021-6024]
[From the U.S. 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     outdated anti-aircraft guns and facing overwhelming firepower 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;

[[Page 6022]]

       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.'';
       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

[[Page 6023]]

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 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

[[Page 6024]]

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.

                          ____________________