[Congressional Record: June 21, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S3941-S3945]
LIBYA
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from
Massachusetts, who will shortly submit the product of many hours of
bipartisan cooperation and negotiation, an authorization for the
limited use of military force in Libya. The resolution, as will be
introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, as I mentioned, would
authorize the President to employ the U.S. Armed Forces to advance U.S.
national security interests in Libya as part of the international
coalition that is enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions in Libya.
It would limit this authority to 1 year, which is more than enough time
to finish the job, and it makes clear that the Senate agrees with the
President that there is no need and no desire to commit U.S.
conventional ground forces in Libya.
I will be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect
and it will not make everyone happy. It does not fully make me happy. I
would have preferred that this authorization make clear that our
military mission includes the President's stated policy objective of
forcing Qadhafi to leave power. I would have preferred that it urge the
President to commit more U.S. strike aircraft to the mission in Libya
so as to help bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible. And I
would have preferred that it call on the President to recognize the
Transitional National Council as the legitimate voice of the Libyan
people so as to free Qadhafi's frozen assets for the Transitional
National Council to use on behalf of the Libyan people. I have called
on the administration to do all of these things for some time, and I do
so now again.
That said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort. My
Republican colleagues and I have had to make compromises, just as have
the Senator from Massachusetts and his Democratic colleagues. I believe
the end result is an authorization that deserves the support of my
colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I am confident
they will support it.
I know the administration has made it clear that it believes it does
not need a congressional authorization such as this because it is their
view that U.S. military operations in Libya do not rise to the level of
hostility. I believe this assertion will strike most of my colleagues
and the Americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense,
and it seems to be undercut by the very report the administration sent
to Congress which makes clear that U.S. Armed Forces have been and
presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress
enemy air defenses, to operate armed Predator drones that are attacking
Qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect Libyan civilians, and to
provide the overwhelming support for NATO operations, from intelligence
to aerial refueling. Indeed, we read in today's New York Times that
since the April 7 date that the administration claims to have ceased
hostilities in Libya, U.S. warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses
on 60 occasions and fired about 30 missiles from unmanned drones.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks the article from today's New York Times
entitled ``Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Follow Handoff to Libya.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCAIN. I certainly agree that actions such as these do not
amount to a full-fledged state of war, and I will certainly grant that
I am no legal scholar, but I find it hard to swallow that U.S. Armed
Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country
does not amount to a state of hostilities.
What is worse, this is just the latest way in which this
administration has mishandled its responsibility with regard to
Congress. The President could have asked to authorize our intervention
in Libya months ago, and I believe it could have received a strong,
though certainly not unanimous, show of support.
The administration's disregard for the elected representatives of the
American people on this matter has been troubling and
counterproductive. The unfortunate result of this failure of leadership
is plain to see in the full-scale revolt against the administration's
Libya policy that is occurring in the House of Representatives. As I
speak now, our colleagues in the House are preparing a measure that
would cut off all funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, and
they plan to vote on it in the coming days.
I know many were opposed to this mission from the beginning, and I
respect their convictions. I myself have disagreed and disagreed
strongly at
[[Page S3942]]
times with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya. But at the
end of the day, I believe the President did the right thing by
intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya.
Amid all our arguments over prudence, legality, and constitutionality
of the administration's policy in Libya, we cannot forget the main
point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in
two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the
Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of
Benghazi and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region
pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States
and our allies took action and prevented the massacre Qadhafi had
promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began
creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give
up power.
Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had
hoped and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and
others would like, but the bottom line is this: We are succeeding,
Qadhafi is weakening. His military leaders and closest associates are
abandoning him. NATO is increasing the tempo of its operations and
degrading Qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. The
Transitional National Council is gaining international recognition and
support and performing more effectively, and though their progress is
uneven, opposition forces in Libya are making strategic gains on the
ground.
We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are
the facts. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I
ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to turn against this
policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when
the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? Is this the time for
Congress to declare to the world, to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to
all of the Libyans who are sacrificing to force Qadhafi from power, and
to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this
military operation than we are--is this the time for America to tell
all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we
have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through,
that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? These
are the questions every Member of Congress needs to think about long
and hard but especially my Republican colleagues.
Many of us remember well the way some of our friends on the other
side of the aisle savaged President Bush over the Iraq war and how they
sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull
America out of that conflict. We were right to condemn that behavior
then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because
the leader of the opposite party occupies the White House. Someday--I
hope soon--a Republican will again occupy the White House, and that
President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities. So if my
Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect
this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote
to cut off funding for this military operation can come back to haunt a
future President when the shoe is on the other foot.
The House of Representatives will have its say on our involvement in
Libya this week. The Senate has been silent for too long. It is time
for the Senate to speak, and when that time comes I believe we will
find a strong bipartisan majority in favor of authorizing our current
military operations in Libya and seeing this mission through to
success. That is the message Qadhafi needs to hear; it is a message
Qadhafi's opponents, fighting to liberate their nation, need to hear;
and it is a message America's friends and allies need to hear.
So let's debate this authorization, but then let's vote on it as soon
as possible.
I wish to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his hard work on
this resolution. I understand he will be submitting it very soon. I
hope the majority leader of the Senate will schedule a debate and vote
on this resolution as soon as possible. It is long overdue.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, June 20, 2011]
Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO
(By Charlie Savage and Thom Shanker)
Washington.--Since the United States handed control of the
air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes
have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and
remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces
about 30 times, according to military officials.
The most recent strike from a piloted United States
aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an
American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.
While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged
that American forces have continued to take part in some of
the strike sorties, few details about their scope and
frequency have been made public.
The unclassified portion of material about Libya that the
White House sent to Congress last week, for example, said
``American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy
air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator''
drones, but included no numbers for such strikes.
The disclosure of such details could add texture to an
unfolding debate about the merits of the Obama
administration's legal argument that it does not need
Congressional authorization to continue the mission because
United States forces are not engaged in ``hostilities''
within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
Under that 1973 law, presidents must end unauthorized
deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have
introduced American forces into actual or imminent
hostilities. That deadline for the Libyan mission appeared to
pass on May 20, but the administration contended that the
deadline did not apply because the United States' role had
not risen to the level of ``hostilities,'' at least since it
handed control of the mission over to NATO.
In support of that argument, the administration has pointed
to a series of factors, noting, for example, that most of the
strikes have been carried out by allies, while the United
States has primarily been playing ``non-kinetic'' supporting
roles like refueling and surveillance. It has also said there
is little risk of American casualties because there are no
ground troops and Libyan forces have little ability to
exchange fire with American aircraft. And it noted that the
mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations
Security Council resolution.
The special anti-radar missiles used to suppress enemy air
defenses are usually carried by piloted aircraft, not drones,
and the Pentagon has regularly said that American military
aircraft have continued to conduct these missions. Still,
officials have been reluctant to release the exact numbers of
strikes.
Under military doctrine, strikes aimed at suppressing air
defenses are typically considered to be defensive actions,
not offensive. On the other hand, military doctrine also
considers the turning on of air-defense radar in a no-fly
zone to be a ``hostile act.'' It is not clear whether any of
the Libyan defenses were made targets because they had turned
on such radar.
The administration's legal position prompted internal
controversy. Top lawyers at the Justice Department and the
Pentagon argued that the United States' military activities
did amount to ``hostilities'' under the War Powers
Resolution, but President Obama sided with top lawyers at the
State Department and the White House who contended that they
did not cross that threshold.
On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary,
acknowledged the internal debate, but defended the judgment
made by Mr. Obama, noting that the applicability of the War
Powers Resolution to deployments has repeatedly prompted
debate over the years.
The House of Representatives may vote later this week on a
proposal to cut off funding for the Libya mission. The
proposal is backed by an odd-bedfellows coalition of antiwar
liberals and Tea Party Republicans.
They are opposed by an equally unusual alignment of
Democrats who support the White House and the intervention in
Libya, and more hawkish Republicans.
On Monday, a group that includes prominent neoconservative
figures--including Liz Cheney, Robert Kagan, William Kristol
and Paul Wolfowitz--sent Republicans an open letter opposing
efforts to cut off funds for the mission.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest 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 Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see another colleague who is waiting for
time. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as I might use,
but it won't be much over 10 minutes.
[[Page S3943]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona for his
important and courageous comments that run counter to the political
currents of the day, some of which have been expressed in the other
body and elsewhere. I thank him for thinking about the strategic
interests of the country ahead of some of the political interests with
respect to the next election.
There have been many occasions when this body has behaved very
differently when a President, either Republican or Democrat, has
engaged American forces in one way or another without authorization
within that 60-day--or even outside of the 60-day--parameter of the War
Powers Act. The fact is, we have had a number of military actions--
Panama, Libya in 1986, Grenada in 1983, Iran in 1980, Haiti in 1993,
the Persian Gulf in 1987 to 1988, Lebanon in 1982, and then
subsequently Kosovo in 1999, Bosnia in 1992, Somalia in 1992--which
didn't have this fight about authorization.
In fact, only Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 1990
were authorized prior to our engagement. The fact is, four of those I
mentioned ended before the 60 days had expired, but the others didn't.
Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia all went beyond 60 days, and the issue was
never raised. So I think it is important for us to put this in context,
if you will, and to measure some of the realities and the choices we
face with respect to Libya today.
We will shortly this morning--a little later--be submitting this
resolution. It is a bipartisan resolution. Democrats and Republicans
are joining together to put in a very limited authorization with
respect to our engagement in a support role--not any direct engagement
but a support role only--and it is limited to that support role.
I am particularly familiar with the debate relating to, and with the
War Powers Act itself, over these years because that was a debate that
took place specifically in response to the war that Senator McCain and
I were both a part of--the Vietnam war. The War Powers Act was a direct
reaction to that war which was at that time the longest war in our
history, until now--Afghanistan--10 years in duration. Over 58,000
Americans lost their lives, and it spanned several administrations,
including Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. The fact is, as a result of that
war in which we never declared war, the Congress wanted to assert its
appropriate prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war and the
engagement of American forces. So the War Powers Act was passed.
The War Powers Act very specifically created this dynamic where the
Congress had 60 days to act. The President could deploy troops for a
period of 60 days without their action, and if they hadn't acted, the
inaction itself would require a President to then withdraw troops. So
it didn't actually require the Congress to act, but it created this 60-
day period. The fact is, any Member of Congress during those 60 days
could bring a resolution to the floor denying the President the right
to go forward. Nobody did that in the past 60 days, I am glad to say,
and we are now beyond those 60 days.
It is not without precedent, incidentally, that we have authorized an
action much later. In fact, I think one action was specifically
authorized for about a year, and that was the action in Lebanon. About
a year after they had landed it was authorized. So we are within days
of that in terms of this discussion.
Let me read specifically what the War Powers Act says. It says:
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in
which the United States Armed Forces are introduced into
hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. . . .
I think the operative words, the critical words, are ``United States
Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities.''
Now, one could argue, as people are--there is an article in the
Washington Post today, and there are other articles where people are
saying: Well, of course we are in hostilities. Hostilities are taking
place. Bombs are being dropped. But that is not, in my judgment, even
though I support the War Powers Act--and President Obama, incidentally,
has supported it here, which is unique from other Presidents--but the
fact is, just because hostilities are taking place and we are
supporting people engaged in those hostilities does not mean we are
ourselves, in fact, introducing troops into hostilities.
No American is being shot at. No American troop is on the ground or
contemplated being put on the ground. So the mere fact that others are
engaged in hostilities and we are supporting them I don't believe
automatically triggers what was contemplated in the aftermath of the
Vietnam war.
Frankly, that is not the principal argument we need to be having.
What we need to be doing is looking at the bigger picture. I don't
think any country--the United States, the U.N., or any nation--ought to
be drawn lightly into any kind of military intervention. I have always
argued that. But, in my judgment, there were powerful reasons the
United States should have joined in establishing the no-fly zone over
Libya and forcing Qadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the
fight.
If we slice through the fog of misinformation and weigh the risks and
the benefits alongside our values and our interests, which are always
at stake, I think the justification for the President's involvement,
for our country's involvement, and for our supporting it are
compelling, and I think they are clear.
What is happening in the Middle East right now could be the single
most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It
has profound implications for U.S. expenditures and for U.S. military
engagement in other parts of the region. It has significant impact on
the threats we will face, on the potential strategic risks for our
country, and for our interests in terms of that region.
Absent United Nations-NATO resolve, the promise that the prodemocracy
movement holds for transforming the Arab world--the whole Arab world--
and all it could mean for the United States in terms of hopes for peace
between Israel and Palestine, hopes for a different set of
relationships, hopes for restraining Wahabi-ism, hopes for diminishing
the levels of religious extremism, hopes for reducing the amount of
terrorism--all of those things are contained in this awakening, in this
transformation people are trying to achieve. It is an effort which I
and others believe would have been crushed if the hopes of the
prodemocracy movement were simply ignored and we turned our backs on
them.
I can't imagine--just think about the consequences. Colonel Qadhafi
says: I am going to show no mercy. I am going to go and kill those
dogs--dogs--who have risen up and expressed their desire to have
fundamental freedoms and rights. He is going to go into Benghazi and he
is going to annihilate anybody who is in opposition to him. We already
saw him pulling people out of hospital beds. We already saw him
attacking women--using rape as a tool of war--dishonoring people in the
Muslim world as a consequence for life. We saw what he was doing.
Are we really serious that in the wake of the gulf states, in an
unprecedented request saying to us: We want your help; in the wake of
the Arab League in an unprecedented request asking for U.S. and other
Western engagement in their part of the world to stand up for these
rights, that we would simply say: Too bad, so sad, go about your
business, we have better things to do?
The consequences would have been extraordinary. Remember, President
Clinton said his greatest regret of his Presidency was he didn't engage
in Rwanda and prevent--which we could have done at very low cost--what
happened with the genocide in Rwanda. That is his greatest regret.
How many Senators have gone to Israel and gone somewhere else in the
world and said to people with respect to the Holocaust: Never again;
never again. Do the words only apply to one group of people or do the
words have meaning in terms of genocide, in terms of wanton killing of
innocent people at the hands of a dictator?
So what is the cost to us of this great effort? I believe other
dictators would have seen the failure to challenge Qadhafi as a
complete license to act with impunity against their people at any other
place.
[[Page S3944]]
The vast majority of the protesters in these countries are simply
crying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a job,
provide for a family, have opportunities, and have rights. I think
abandoning them would have betrayed not only the people seeking
democratic freedoms, but it would have abandoned the core values of our
country. And I can hear now--I can hear it. Some of the same people now
who are complaining about the President being involved would have been
the first people at the barricade complaining about why the United
States did not stand up for our values and how feckless the President
was that he was not willing to stop a dictator from coming at these
innocent people. You can hear it. Everybody in the country knows that
is exactly where we would be.
Now, why there and not in Syria? A legitimate question. There are
different interests and different capacities. The reality is, the Gulf
States asked us to come in. The Arab League asked us to come in. And we
knew whom we were dealing with with respect to the council and the
players. There is a whole set of uncertainties with respect to Syria,
even today, that distinguish it both in terms of what we can assert and
what we can achieve, and sometimes both in foreign policy and in
domestic policy you are limited to what you can achieve and to what is
doable in a certain situation.
I believe if we had simply turned our backs, as some people are now
arguing we ought to do now, which would be the most reckless thing I
have ever heard in my life--at a moment where people are actually
achieving the goals, where the pressures are mounting, where Qadhafi is
less able to maneuver, where his forces have been reduced, where many
people in our intelligence community and in the NATO intelligence
community are saying there is progress being made and the vice is
tightening--that we would suddenly just pull the rug out from under
that is extraordinary to me. Snatch--snatch--defeat from the jaws of
victory. I believe--I cannot tell you when it might happen, but I am
absolutely confident it is going to happen--Qadhafi is finished. Ask
the people in the country. Even his own supporters are reacting out of
fear. And the truth is, the vice is tightening because every day that
goes by, the opposition gets stronger; every day that goes by, he has
less ability to manage the affairs of the country itself.
I think if we simply send the message the House of Representatives is
contemplating today, it would be a moment of infamy, frankly, with
respect to the House and with respect to our interests because it would
reinforce the all too common misperception on the Arab street that
America says one thing and does another.
We are already spending billions of dollars in the fight against
extremism in many parts of the world. We did not choose this fight.
Everybody knows that. It was forced on us, starting with 9/11. To fail
to see the opportunity of affirming the courageous demand of millions
of disenfranchised young people who had been the greatest recruits for
al-Qaida for the extremism, for any of the extremist groups--to not
affirm their quest now to try to push back against repression and
oppression and to try to open a set of opportunities for themselves for
jobs, for respect, for democracy--I think to turn our backs on that
would be ignorant, irresponsible, shortsighted, and dangerous for our
country. It would ignore our real national security interests, and it
would help extend the narrative of resentment toward the United States
and much of the West that is rooted in colonialism and furthered by our
own invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember, the pleas for help did not just come from the Libyan
rebels. And this is not something we just cooked up here at home with
some desire to go get engaged somewhere. It came from the Arab League,
which has never before asked for this kind of assistance. It came from
the Gulf States, which have never before said to the West: We need your
help to come intervene.
Even at the hand of their own leader, it seems to me that if we had
silently accepted the deaths of Muslims, we would have set back our
relations for decades. Instead, by responding and giving the popular
uprising a chance to take power, I think the United States and our
allies send a message of solidarity with the aspirations of people
everywhere, and I believe that will be remembered for generations.
The particular nature of the madman who was vowing to ``show no
mercy'' to his own people, to his own fellow Muslims, the particular
nature of this man, who was going to go after the ``dogs'' who dared to
challenge him, and his role in the past, I believe, mandated that we
respond. And we responded in a stunningly limited way.
I do think our colleagues from New Jersey and New York and other
States in New England need to reflect on the fact--they do not really
need a reminder, I suspect--that Qadhafi is the man who was behind the
bombing of Pan Am 103, claiming the lives of 189 Americans.
The intervention in Libya, in my judgment, sends a critical signal to
other leaders in the region that they cannot automatically assume they
can simply resort to large-scale violence to put down legitimate
demands for reform without any consequences. I think U.N. resolve in
Libya can have an impact on future calculations. Indeed, I think the
leaders of Iran need to pay close attention to the resolve that is
exhibited by the international community, and we need to think about
that resolve in the context of our interests in Iran.
The resolution we will submit--Senator McCain and myself and other
Senators--is absolutely not a blank check for the President. Not at
all. It is a resolution that authorizes limited use of American forces
in a supporting role. I want to emphasize that. There is only an
authorization for a supporting role. It says specifically that the
Senate does not support the use of ground troops in Libya. The
President has stated that is his policy, but we adopt that policy in
this resolution. It authorizes the limited use of American forces for a
limited duration, and it would expire 1 year from the time of
authorization.
This resolution envisions action consistent with the letter the
President sent to congressional leaders on May 20 in which he specified
that the U.S. participation in Libya has consisted of nonkinetic
support of the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical
support, and search and rescue missions.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think I asked for such time as I would
use, but I will try to tighten it up.
The administration informed Congress last week it does not consider
the use of U.S. forces to rise to the level of ``hostilities.'' I have
already discussed that. I think there is an important constitutional
question here, but it is not a new question. The truth is that
Presidents--Democratic and Republican--have undertaken limited military
action. I mentioned each of those instances.
I think this debate is healthy, but the words we use about it have
consequences. They send a message. And I think none of us should send
any message to Colonel Qadhafi lightly. The last message any U.S.
Senator wants to send, in my judgment, is that all he has to do is wait
us out, all he has to do is wait for the Congress--even as the progress
is being made and the vice is tightening--because we are divided at
home.
I believe passage of this resolution would be an important step in
showing the country and the rest of the world and particularly showing
Muammar Qadhafi that the Congress of the United States and the
President of the United States are committed to this critical endeavor.
I firmly believe the country is on the strongest footing when the
President and the Congress speak with one voice on foreign policy
matters. So I hope our colleagues will support this resolution.
For 60 years, we have been working to build a cohesive and consistent
alliance with our partners in NATO. Many times our military and
political leaders have complained that our European allies have not
carried their share of the burden; that Americans have paid too high a
price in blood and treasure; that we have led while others followed.
Earlier this month, Secretary Gates warned that the NATO alliance is at
risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line
combat. He said the United States was not going to carry the alliance
as a charity
[[Page S3945]]
case. Well, here is the alliance leading. Here is the alliance doing
what we have wanted them to do for years. And here, all of a sudden,
are Members of Congress suggesting it is OK to pull the rug out from
under that alliance. I think that would really toll the bell for NATO.
I believe we need to see the realities of the strategic interests
that are on the table and proceed. Will we stand up for our values and
our interests at the same time? Will we support the legitimate
aspirations of the Libyan people? I think our own security ultimately
will be strengthened immeasurably if we can assist them to transition
to a democracy. The cost now will be far, far less than the cost in the
future if we lose our resolve now.
I thank my colleague for his generous allowance of the extra time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________
