[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10306-10312]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 10307]]

  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 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.

[[Page 10308]]

  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 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

[[Page 10309]]

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 intelligence and refueling capabilities that we 
are providing. The means that

[[Page 10310]]

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

[[Page 10311]]

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 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

[[Page 10312]]

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 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.

                          ____________________