[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9053-9054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIBYA

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today because I 
believe the United States is headed down a slippery path toward an 
escalation of military force in Libya. I also believe if the U.S. 
military is to be involved in such an escalation, then the Congress 
must exercise its constitutional authority and approve or disapprove 
the President's proposal.
  I supported President Obama's initial decision to engage in a limited 
military operation to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe. 
President Obama and the international community were clear that 
targeting of civilians by Muammar Qadhafi would not be tolerated. It 
has been over 60 days since the President notified the Congress that he 
intended to use military force in Libya. We are adrift. We are without 
direction. We are in danger of fighting an expanded war, a war that was 
originally justified as a limited military operation, a no-fly zone, to 
prevent civilian casualties and imminent catastrophe. This war has now 
been slowly expanded for one that is pushing for regime change.
  We have been down this path before. Let's not go there. In Libya we 
are now receiving reports that helicopter gunships are being used to 
target ground forces--something that was never originally intended 
under the premise of a no-fly zone. In fact, it seems that the no-fly 
zone has slowly evolved into what some have called a no-drive zone. 
Congress has not approved this action.
  I do not believe the U.N. Security Council approved such an action in 
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.
  We also hear it is now the policy to support regime change and that 
there are some plans to arm rebel groups. Some outside groups and 
Members of Congress are clamoring to escalate the war in Libya. They 
believe air power will never dislodge Muammar Qadhafi and his family. 
The Congress has not approved the use of military force to achieve 
regime change. Flooding the region with small arms is also being 
proposed. This would be a major mistake and could lead to a host of 
unintended consequences.
  We do not know enough about the rebels fighting Qadhafi, but we do 
know there are plenty of mercenaries, as well as members of al-Qaida, 
waiting to exploit any chaos. If arms are flooded into the region, 
there is no guarantee they will be able to account for those arms. In 
my opinion, there is a high likelihood those arms could end up in the 
hands of some very unsavory and dangerous individuals.
  The bottom line is this: Congress has not had the opportunity to 
weigh in. Like my colleagues, I deplore Muammar Qadhafi. I support a 
democratic transition and his departure from power, but the military 
goals should be defined and limited as a matter of policy. It should 
not include regime change. This would be a dangerous escalation.
  As many of you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was 
planning a markup for last Thursday of S. Res. 194, titled ``Expressing 
the Sense of the Senate on the United States Military Operations in 
Libya.'' I had strong concerns about the resolution we were scheduled 
to consider. A sense of the Senate is clearly not an authorization for 
use of military force. A sense of the Senate does not meet the 
requirements of the War Powers Act. And a sense of the Senate falls 
short of meeting our constitutional obligation to declare war.
  I drafted an amendment to S. Res. 194. I ask unanimous consent the 
text of this amendment be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. My amendment stated:

       The President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, 
     including special operations forces, in pursuance of any 
     goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless 
     expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary 
     by the President to protect a member of the United States 
     Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.

  I believe any authorization of military force should contain similar 
language. I understand Senator Webb and Senator Corker have introduced 
a resolution with these prohibitions and exceptions to protect our 
troops and I support these efforts to limit the mission in Libya. It is 
important that we do not escalate military actions in Libya. An 
escalation would be a dangerous course, and it would be costly to the 
region and our country.
  While the markup has been postponed, it is my understanding that 
Senator Kerry and others are working on language that would fulfill our 
constitutional obligations and comply with the War Powers Act. I look 
forward to consideration of a resolution of this kind in the Foreign 
Relations Committee and strongly believe it should include language 
similar to the amendment I was going to offer.
  I have been proud to serve in the Congress for more than a decade. We 
have fought two lengthy wars during this period of time. I have seen 
the impact on our military, on their families, on our national deficit. 
Before the United States escalates its involvement in another overseas 
conflict, Congress must weigh in. It is our constitutional duty.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Draft Amendment to S. Res. 194

       That the President is not authorized to deploy ground 
     forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of 
     any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless 
     expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary 
     by the President to protect a member of the United States 
     Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, my 
colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, for his statement 
on the floor this morning. It reflects my sentiments completely. I have 
believed since I was first elected to the House of Representatives and 
my time in the Senate that we have an awesome responsibility under the 
Constitution to speak for the American people when the United States of 
America makes a decision to engage in conduct that relates to our 
military--particularly when it comes to a declaration of war.
  It is clearly understood that if American citizens are under attack 
or American soil is under threat of attack, the President has the power 
to move, and move quickly, as Commander in Chief

[[Page 9054]]

to protect us. In this instance, the War Powers Act suggests that it is 
now, after 60 days, at that point the responsibility of Congress to 
step forward, to speak for the American people, and to make a decision 
as to whether we go forward with a military commitment.
  What the Senator from New Mexico has suggested I believe goes right 
to the heart of our constitutional responsibility. It is a 
responsibility which we swore to uphold. It is also a responsibility 
which politically we try to avoid. It is a hard debate and a hard 
decision.
  I am sure the Senator from New Mexico believes, as I do, that some of 
the toughest votes we have ever had to face as Members of Congress 
relate to this decision because if the decision is made to go to war, 
we know the lives of Americans are at risk.
  That is why I believe what the Senator from New Mexico said on the 
Senate floor this morning is so critically important. I am going to 
work with him and with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee to move forward on a resolution which is consistent with the 
War Powers Act which expressly states the feelings of the American 
people through their Representatives in Congress about this decision 
and our constitutional responsibility.
  I sincerely hope we can resolve this before we end this work period, 
which will be about July 1. If we can bring an issue forward on the 
floor for that purpose, I believe it is in the best interests of our 
senatorial responsibility.
  I might say, because I have discussed this with the Senator from New 
Mexico, we know one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
wants to expressly authorize the use of ground forces in Libya. Let me 
make it clear, the President has not asked for that. He is not engaged 
with ground forces, land forces in Libya. At this time I would not only 
reject it, I would fight it. I think it is a bad decision. I think to 
engage the United States in a third theater of war with ground forces 
is way too much at this moment in our history.
  So I thank the Senator from New Mexico for not letting this issue 
disappear amidst the hubbub of all the agendas we face on the floor of 
the Senate but coming to the floor and reminding us of our 
constitutional responsibility.
  I will close by thanking Senator Cardin of Maryland as well, who has 
been a lead sponsor in our efforts. I will be working with him and the 
Senator from New Mexico and other like-minded Senators.
  I thank the Senator for coming to the floor.
  I know that wasn't in the nature of a question, but I ask the 
Senator, does he agree?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator for his statement. I 
believe with all of us working together--our chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Cardin, and others, as well as the 
Presiding Officer, who is also on the Foreign Relations Committee with 
us--we can come to a resolution which complies with what the President 
has stated.
  The President says he has no intention of sending ground forces into 
Libya. But it is important at this point in time, as the Senator from 
Illinois pointed out and as the Constitution mandates, that we step in 
and express the will of the American people on this issue. That is the 
whole purpose of what I am on the floor for today, and I look forward 
to working very closely with the Senator from Illinois.
  With that, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I know the Democratic side has not used 
its full allotment of time, but because another speaker is not here, I 
will go ahead, and hopefully we will be able to yield time if someone 
else does come forward.

                          ____________________