Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20110629

week. he will be replaced by leon panetta. you can watch the retirement ceremony later this week on c- span, c-span.org, and on the c- span video library. it is washington your way. >> state department legal does notarold kcoe apply to libya. after this two-hour hearing the committee marks of legislation authorizing the libyan mission for a year, but barring ground forces. >> the hearing will come to order. i apologize for starting a few minutes late. we are here this morning to further examine an issue that we have been debating since it was passed. i think this is a good kid -- a debate of decades, since the 1970's. certainly, it has been debated over the course of the last war's with respect to the parts resolution and its role in america's use of force in libya. want to thank all my colleagues for the very constructive manner in which we conducted that discussion over these past weeks. this afternoon, the committee will meet again. i would ask all the members, as you run into all the other members, if we could begin that meeting punctually. i think there is a fair amount of business. it is obviously important business. i want to try to considered as expeditiously as possible. that is with respect to the proposed resolution regarding the limited operations in support of the nato mission in libya. it is my personal firm belief that america's values and interests compel us to join other nations in establishing a no-fly zone over libya. by keeping duffy's most potent weapons out of the fight, -- by most potentafi's weapons out of the fight, it was a big difference. it has been confirmed that the actions of the united nations indeed saved thousands of people from being massacred by gaddafi. there is no question in my mind about that. we also sent a message about something that matters to the american people, as a matter of our values. that it's about whether or not leaders should be permitted, willy-nilly, to turn their armies on their own citizens, the citizens they're supposed to serve and protect. i made clear my belief that the 60-day restriction contained in the war powers resolution does not apply in this situation, particularly since we handed over the operations to nato. some people, obviously, can draw different interpretations and will and we will have a good discussion about that. it is good to remember that the worker resolution was a direct reaction to a particular kind of war, to a particular set of events -- the vietnam war. at that time, it was the longest conflict in our history that resulted, without any declaration of war, in the loss of several thousand american lives spanning three administrations. during those three administrations, congress never declare war. understandably, congress, after that, wanted to ensure that, in the future, it would have the opportunity to assert its constitutional program moves, which i do believe with and agree with, when america sends its soldiers abroad. but our involvement in libya is clearly different from our fight in vietnam. it is a limited operation and the war powers resolution applies to the use of armed forces in "hostilities or situations where imminent hostilities in vault are clearly indicated by the circumstances referring to the american armed forces." for 40 years, presidents have taken the view that this language does not include every single military operation. presidents from both parties have undertaken military operations without express authorization from congress. i will emphasize that that does not make it right. i am not suggesting that it does. it still begs the analysis each time of whether or not it fits a particular situation. certainly, panama, grenada, haiti, costs of a, 11 non, the list is long where presidents have -- because of lokosovo, lee list is long were presidents have done this. in lebanon, congress actually authorize action a year later. we have never minded in the war powers resolution -- we have never amended the war paras resolution. define hostilities only as those situations where u.s. troops were exchanging fire. with hostile forces. subsequent administrations, republican and democrat alike, build on that interpretation. but, in libya today, no american is being shot at. no american troops are on the ground. and we will not put them there. it is true, of course, that the war powers resolution was not drafted with the drones in mind. as our military technology becomes more and more advanced, it may well be that the language that i just read needs for the clarification. maybe it is up to was to redefine it in the context of this more modern and changed warfare and threat. i certainly recognize that there can be very reasonable differences of opinion on this point. so i'm glad we're having this hearing. i think it is important. many of us have met with members of the libyan opposition. i know senators are eager to get to know them better and to learn about their plans and goals. i see we are joined this morning by with his ambassador to the united states. but he resigned during the uprising and is now the diplomatic representative of the transitional national council which only recently was moved by germany to recognize. we would all like to see a brighter future for libya. that is why, when it comes to american involvement, we need to look beyond the definition of hostilities to the bigger picture. a senate resolution authorizing the limited use of force in libyan well, i think, show the world, especially gaddafi, at a time when most people make a judgment that the nooses tightening, that the vice is squeezing, that the opposition is advancing, that the regime is under enormous pressure that congress and the president are committed to this critical endeavor. the united states is always strong this when we speak with one strong voice on foreign policy. that is why i hope we can find an agreement to a bipartisan resolution this also sends a message to our allies in nato. secretary gates, prior to departing in recent days, made a very strong speech about the nato, the need for nato to do more. the fact is that nato is doing more in this effort. and they are in the lead in this effort. we have asked in the past but the alliance take the lead in many conflicts. to often, they have declined. in this case, they have stepped up. i believe that, for us to turn on our own words and pull out the rug from under them, it would have far reaching consequences. with that said, i am greatly -- it is a great pleasure for me to welcome harold coe. he is listed department's legal adviser. he is an extremely distinguished adviser. he has a long career of service in the government as well as academia. we have also invited some witnesses from the pentagon and the justice department, but they have declined to appear. we have louis fisher and scholar and resident of the constitution project. he worked for four decades of the library of congress as the senior specialist in separation of powers and is a specialist in constitutional law. professor spiro has served in the state department and on the national security council staff and has written extensively on foreign relations law of the united states. we think all the witnesses for taking time to be here today. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for calling this meeting. it will consider the legal basis for ongoing u.s. military operations in libya. the president declined to seek congressional operation before engaging in hostilities. he is carrying out for more than three months without seeking your receiving congressional authorization this is at odds with the constitution and with the president's own pronouncements on war powers. 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 it an actual or imminent threat to the nation." before return to constitutional and legal issues, i believe it is important to make a more fundamental point. even if one believes the president somehow have the legal authority to initiate and continue the military operations in libya, it does not mean that going to war without congress was either wise or helpful to the operation. the vast majority of members of congress, constitutional scholars, and military authorities would endorse the view that the president should seek congressional authorization for war when circumstances allow. there is a new uniform opinion that the chances for success in a war are enhanced by the unity, clarity of mission, and constitutional certainty for such an authorization. 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 you and security council resolution. but these excuses do not justify the president's lack of constitutional discipline. 12 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 a key events on calculations in 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. this debate would not have been easy. but the president should not avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient. if the outcome of congressional war is in doubt, it is more the reason why the president should seek debate. if he does not, he is taking the extraordinary position that his plans of 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 tbroad latitude jefferson. "the executive is the branch of our most interested in war and most prone to it. it has accordingly with studied care bested the question of war in legislature." nearly, there are some some -- circumstances under which the present maybe justified in employing military force without congressional authorization none of the reasons apply to the libyan case. our country was not attacked or threatened with an attack. we were not 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 a surprise. in this case, president obama made a deliberate decision not to seek congressional authorization of his actions, either before it commenced or during the last three months. this was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed expedient of the constitutional responsibility. some will say the president is not the first to employ american forces overseas in controversial circumstances without a congressional authorization. the highly dubious argument offered by the obama administration for not meeting congressional approval breaks new ground in justifying a unilateral presidential decision to use force. the approval of even more worried -- more were making authority in 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 this complex, the president heard that the experience in libya would be limited. three months later, the assurances ring hollow. american and coalition military activities have expanded to an all-but declared campaign to drive gaddafi from power. the administration has been unable to apply any duration. in effort to protect civilians under imminent threat to obliterating libya's military arsenal. most recently, the administration has sought to avoid its obligation under war powers resolution by making the incredible assertion that u.s. military operations in libya do not constitute hostilities. even some prominent supporters of the war have refused to accept this claim. the administration's own description of the operations in libya _ the fallacy of the vision. -- in libyan underscore the fallacy of the vision. predator drungs fired missiles on many occasions -- predator drones fired missiles on many occasions. they depend on the essential support functions provided by the united states. the resolution required the united -- the president to terminate fossiforces in libya y 20. the administration declined to offer any explanation of its view that u.s. forces were not engaged in hostilities in libya and tarot nearly a month later, on june 15. -- in libya until nearly a month later, on june 15. the administration analysis focuses on the question on whether u.s. casualties are likely to occur. thereby minimizing other considerations relevant to the use of force. if this definition of hostilities or expected, presence would have significant scope to conduct warfare through other means, such as missiles and drones. the administration's report also implies that, because allied nations are flying most of the missions over libya, the united states operations are not significant enough to require congressional authorization. this characterization underplays the neutrality of the u.s. contributions to the nato operations in libya. we are contributing 70% of the coalition's intelligence capabilities and the majority of its refueling assets. the fact that we are leaving most of the shooting to the country's does not mean that the united states is not involved in acts of war. moreover, the resolution encompasses the kinds of operations u.s. military forces are performing in support of other nato countries. these concerns are compounded by indications that the administration's legal position was a result of a disputed decision process. according to press reports, the president made the decision to adopt this position without the department of justice having the opportunity to develop a unified legal opinion. it is regrettable that the administration has refused our request to make witnesses available for today's hearing. finally, one would expect the administration to be fully forthcoming on consultations about libya to compensate in some measure for the lack of congressional authorization for the war. although consultations do not substitute for formal authorization, they serve a vital purpose in unifying the government and providing congress with a basis for decision making on the war. for the most part, for example, the clinton administration and president clinton himself consulted meaningfully with congress in the united states innovations -- united states interventions in the balkans parent this committee alone has experienced at least -- in the balkans. this committee alone has experienced at least where witnesses have been denied and questions about the operations have gone unanswered. this inexplicable behavior contributes to the damage that the libya president might trade in the future. -- libya precedent might create in the future. the president does not have the authority to substitute his judgment for constitutional process when there's 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 united states 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. i think the german for the opportunity to make this statement. >> thank you very much. legal counsel, other you have it, sir. the stage is set. two different views reflecting over 50 years of service on this committee. we're still not sure what the answer is. so your task this morning is an interesting one. i think we will not only have a good dialogue, but maybe it will be fun. have at it. you are on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to be back before you. like past legal and buzzers, i am honored to appear to explain the administration's legal position under work hours. i submitted detailed testimony, which have before you, which reviews the brutality visited by gaddafi on the people of libya and the urgent but restrained depth this administration has taken to stop that within a supporting role in a mission that is limited with respect to design from exposure of u.s. troops, risk of escalation, and choice of military means. today, let me make three points. first, this administration is acting lawfully, consistent with both the letter and spirit of the constitution and the war powers resolution. contrary to what some have claimed, we're not asserting constitutional power to bypass congress. he has never claimed authority to violate the war powers resolution. he has not claimed the right to violate international law to use force abroad when doing so would not serve important national interest or to refuse to consult with congress on important war powers issues. we recognize that congress has powers to term it uses of force and the war powers resolution plays an important role in promoting dialogue. my testimony today continues that dialogue which now includes 10 hearings, 30 briefings, and dozens of exchanges with congress on this issue. from the start, we have sought to serve the law -- to obey the law. he framed our military mission narrowly, but no ground troops would be deployed, that u.s. forces would transition responsibility to nato command, shifting to a constrained and supporting role within a multinational civilian protection mission. from the outset, we noted that the situation in libya does not constitute a war requiring specific congressional approval under the declaration of war clause of the constitution. as my testimony notes on page 13, the president has constitutional authority long recognized to direct the use of force to serve important international interests and supporting regional stability and credibility and effectiveness of the security council. the nature, scope, and direction he ordered did not rise to the level of war for constitutional purposes. so my second point is that we do not believe that the war powers resolution 60-day immediate pullout applies to this mission. the resolution directs the president to remove u.s. armed forces within 60 days from the date the hostilities or situations where imminent. as everyone recognizes, the legal trigger for the automatic pullout clock, hostilities, is a in in the guinness term of art not found anywhere in the statute. -- is an ambiguous term of art found anywhere in the statute. from the start, legislators disagreed about the meeting of the term and the scope of the 60-day pullout rule and whether a particular set of facts constitute hostility is for the purpose of the resolution. that has been determined less by a narrow parsing of dictionary definitions. the members of congress who drafted the war cars resolution understood that this was not like to the internal revenue code. reading the war powers resolution should not be a mechanical exercise. the term hostilities was a vague, but they declined to give it more concrete and part to avoid hampering future presence by making it a one-size fits all straitjacket that works mechanically without regard to the facts. there are various leaders of this congress who have indicated that they do not believe that the u.s. military operations in libya amount to a cut of hostilities in news and above the 60-day pullout provision to an we agree. the historical -- 60-day pullout provision. we agree. we are not in hostilities of the kind envisioned by the war cars resolution that was intended to travel an automatic 60-day pullout. let me say a word about each of these four limitations. first, the nature of the mission is unusually limited. u.s. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a near-led multinational civilian protection mission. this circumstance is virtually unique, not found in any of the recent historic situations in which the hostility question has been debated, from the iranian hostage crisis, to el salvador, to grenada, to iran in the persian gulf, or to the use of forces in somalia been second, the exposure of our armed forces is limited. from march 31 forward, there have been no u.s. casualties, no threat of significant u.s. casualties, no active exchange with hostile forces, no significant arm concentration -- confrontation. past administrations have not found the 60-day rule to apply even in a situation where far more significant fighting plainly did occur, such as in lebanon in 1983 and somalia in 1993. in contrast to the un authorized the storm operation, which presented over 400,000 troops, the same order of magnitude indian not at its peak, libya did not involve any significant chance of the solution to a full-fledged conflict. in this respect, libya contrasts with other recent cases. past administrations declined to find hostility some of your car's resolution even though u.s. armed forces were repeatedly engaged by other side forces and sustain significant casualties. we are using limited military means, not the kind a full military engagement with which the worker resolution is primarily concerned. that is a statement by my predecessor, the legal counselor in 1975 in response to requests from congress about entering the ford administration. the violence that u.s. armed forces are and the thing or facilitating after the handoff to nato has been modest, the air-to-ground air strikes are a far cry from the extensive aerial strike operations led by u.s. armed forces in kosovo in 1999 or the operations in the balkans in the 1990's. to be specific, google could use contributions has been providing intelligence capabilities and refilling the assets to the initial effort. the very significant majority of the overall -- 75% are being flown by coalition partners. the -- air americans to seven limited on an as-needed basis to enforce the no-fly zone and limited strikes by predator unmanned vehicles against a discrete targets to support the civilian protection mission. since the handoff to nato, the total number of u.s. munitions dropped in libya has been less than 1% of those dropped in kosovo. had any of these elements been absent in libya, things would have been different. this is an operation ltd. in addition, limited in exposure, ltd. in a sense of discussion, and limited in military means that led the present to conclude that the libyan operation did not fall under the automatic 60-day pullout rule. as the chairman suggested, we are far from the court case that most members of congress had in mind when they passed the resolution in 1973. their concern about no more beyond. military meansted le and u.s. casualties, we do not believe that the 1973 congress intended that its resolution should be construed so rigid way -- rigidly. third and finally, we fully recognize that reasonable minds may read the resolution differently. that would not be a surprise. scholars have spent their entire careers debating these issues. these questions of interpretation are matters of important public debate. reasonable minds can certainly differ. we acknowledge that there was perhaps steps that we should have taken or could have taken to better foster communication. but none of us believes that the best way forward now is for gaddafi to prevail and to resume attacks on his own people. curtailing their contributions would undo progress allowing gaddafi to return to brutal attacks on his own people. we can -- however we construe the war powers resolution, we can also agree. the urgent question is not a lot of the policy it. congress supplied funding. i ask the utica identify this -- action -- iand decisive ask you to take quick and decisive action. the united states government is united in its support of an alliance and the aspirations of the libyan people print thank you. her look for to an answering your questions. >> thank you very much. we appreciate the testimony enormously. i will reserve my time for such time that i may want to intervene with my questions. i will turn to senator lugar to start. koh, one of the reasons it is important to have this meeting and debate on this issue is that there are a number of situations in which the united states and other nations have severe disapproval of the governments of those countries. as a matter of fact, from time to time, we make speeches and editorialize and work with others in the united nations to exempt to bring about conditions that are better for the people of countries that we believe are under totalitarian or very afar -- very authoritarian mr. rule. in this particular instance, the libyan situation arose following uprisings in tunisia and egypt, which caught the attention of the united states and the world. in the case of libya, the arab league and the united nations and nato made decision to intervene in the civil war there was -- civil war. there was shooting going on in libya. it could well be that innocent people could be caught in the crossfire. this is the treasury of civil war. in this particular instance, our decision was to intervene in a civil war and we are continuing to intervene in a civil war. despite the fact that we talked about limited hostilities, we also talk openly and the government about the end of the gaddafi rule, about the importance of gaddafi leaving the country and even sent that rumors that he might be entertaining such thoughts. a basic question is, if we do not have some ground rules, the work hours at maybe one area where we try to work this thing out, a more formal declaration of war. this country could decide to intervene in numerous civil wars it could decide to affect the governance of peoples all of the world that we feel is unfair. what is your general comment about this predicament? you may feel very strongly that the adopted a rule is egregiously out of line as opposed to all the other dictators that we have witnessed there is no doubt that we should intervene to prevent him from winning, from shooting at of the people. what is the ground rule for viewing the sole or wherever we may find it all over the earth? .> thank you for that yo i recognize that the difference of view between what i have expressed and what you have expressed is from a good faith disagreement. i understand the concern that you have. throughout the middle east, there is only one situation in which there is a use it -- a u.n. security council resolution in which nato has agreed to take command of the operation, in which the arab league's support the operation and where four moslem country is ready to join the coalition were flying flights. the president was able to structure the mission so that it was limited in nature, so the u.s. would move very quickly into a limited supporting role where there would be no ground troops so that there would be a limited exposure for the risk of escalation would be low and where the united states side, after the transition, would narrow the means being employed so that only its unique capabilities to be used to prevent it duffy from using. -- froto prevent gaddafi from ug them against his own people. it would be complicated to replicate the unusually narrow set of facts. but i say this because i think that our theory and legal approach has been dramatically misunderstood. there is some suggestion that we are flat in the constitution. in fact, we have made it clear that we are not challenging the constitutionality of the resolution. what we're arguing about is whether a very unusual situation fits within a resolution that has been on the books now for almost 40 years and which was designed to play a particular role and will have to be adapted to play that will effectively in this century. >> obviously, i raised the question because i fear that there may be circumstances in which we make decisions based upon the security council or somebody else to intervene in other situations. i would like our own war powers and declaration to be clarified. i raise one more point in this may require other hearings. although we say that the force we are offering is limited and it can include the missiles we fire or drone stacks, what have you, my guess is that, if other countries were employing such methods against us without deploying any troops on the ground in the u.s. or any of the other so-called conventions of war, this would clearly be hostilities. very clearly, we would say that that is grounds for some be at war with weber is firing at us in these situations. a thing that is perhaps why the administration needs to work with congress in this era of drone warfare or long-distance warfare. it is not a question simply of whether american casualties occur or there are hostilities on the ground. the war in the future may be fought in an entirely different way. >> i was thinking this morning when those come up here when it -- when i was coming appeaup he, there was a un security council resolution before the storm. did you need an authorization of the use of military force. my position remains the same period in that circumstance, despite the fact of the multinational coalition authorized by security council resolution, the proposal was 400,000 u.s. troops and comparable vessels accompanying forces, which was the number of forces in vietnam at its height. the un security council resolution alone does not absolving a situation of requiring approval. what makes the situation unusual is not the absence of a century council resolution, but that the mission structured under it is a limited with the u.s. playing such a narrow and supporting role and with such limited exposure. as senator kerry said, no casualties, no threat of casualties, no significant threat of armed engagements. another point made by some about our little approach is that we're somehow suggesting that ladrones get a free pass under the war powers resolution. that is not at all what we're saying. but to make the key point that when the statute of about the introduction of u.s. armed forces in hostilities and what you are sending in is an unmanned aerial vehicle high in the sky, it is not clear that that provision was intended to apply to that particular weapon. it does lead to the question of how to update the war powers resolution for modern conflict. there will be situations of cyber conflict and other kinds of modern technology coming into play, which senators and members of congress and never envisioned in 1973. a thinking make the point well that there is an effort here in the wake of the vietnam to draw a kind of framework, a statute that would allocate authorities, called for reporting, try to promote dialogue that has existed for nearly 40 years. but many of the provisions, particularly the mechanical ones, may turn out to be poorly suited for the current situation. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator lugar. senator casey. >> i wanted to pursue some of the same line of questioning. i appreciate fact that this is difficult as a matter of constitutional law, but also as a matter of policy and perception. i hear a lot from people in pennsylvania that have real concerns about this policy, not only on some of the constitutional debates we're having, but just in terms of the clear impression that has been treated that -- has been created that we are engaged in hostilities in somewhere or another. it is hard for some people to separate from that perception. there are reports according to "the new york times" that, since this handoff took place, u.s. warplanes have struck 60 libyan targets at the same time that unmanned drones fired and libyan forces roughly 30 times. the context of that reporting, i would ask you about this broader question -- it is actually a more pointed question -- as it relates to the administration's justification of drone attacks -- armed drawn attacks and so- called non-hostile operations. how do you get there just as a matter of law? >> thank you, senator. i appreciate again the thoughtfulness of the question which i think is a very good one. in the early days of the libyan action as secretary gates described, the goal was to create in no-fly zone to prevent the duffy from attacking his own people. -- preventing gaddafi from attacking his own people. he appears to have rules of engagement that includes indiscriminate attacks on people. this has led the commission of inquiry and to a warrant against him in international criminal court. the core of it was first of the establishment of the no-fly zone. second, for the u.s. to shift from a lead role into a support role. the bulk of the contributions, as i have suggested, have been primarily intelligence, refueling, search and rescue, flyovers and the like with no fire at all. but there are two elements that have been added to the picture. one is the enemy air defenses. if did duffy's command and control existed -- it gaddafi's command and control existed, he could replicate his capacity to kill civilians. the move from one and then stop is simply allowing gaddafi in a game of what the mall in a game of whack-a-game pf mole to return atrocities. let me emphasize some numbers that i give earlier. i think they are important. in the overall number of sorties that have been flown, the united states have flown 10%. the predator strikes, as you suggested, are a relatively small number. the total number of munitions dropped by either man or creditors at this moment, according to our best information, is less than 1% of the amount that was dropped in in which there was a substantial debate about the use of the powers. this is not a parsing of dictionary terms. it is a step toward provision. there are provisions that have terms of art, like "emergency." the foreign relations committee might have some questions. the word here chosen was "hostilities." over time, as phillies have been defined through executive and -- hostilities have been defined through executive practice for some level of strikes with a major focus being on whether the mission is limited, whether the risk of escalation is limited, whether the exposure is limited , and whether the choice of military means is nearly constrained. it is within that set of four limitations that apply here that it was our conclusion that we are well within the scope of the kinds of activities in the past were not considered suited. >> are you concerned about the precedent here? do you have any concerns about that? do you think this is breaking new ground? >> they are two different questions. of course, i am concerned about the precedent. i have spent much of my academic career writing about the balance of power between congress and the executive branch and for repairs. i pointed out -- and foreign affairs. i pointed at the the basic structural flaw of the war powers resolution are some of the virtues. there is a blunt time limit. but one of its structural flaws is that it requires an automatic pullout without congress ever having been made a specific judgment over whether or not they approve or disapprove of an action. that could lead them in certain circumstances, to atrocities resuming because of the lack of a clear congressional stamps. the goal in the vietnam era was to try to find a single congressional position that could be applied. i agree that there have been cases in which the executive branch has overreached. i have written this in my academic work for years. this is precisely why the president here, we think, has been narrowly drawn. precedent here, we think, has been nearly drawn. we're simply saying that, when the mission is limited, the risk of escalation is limited, the threat to troops is limited, particularly because of no ground troops, and when the tools are being used are extremely limited, that does not trigger a 60-day clock. in doing so, we looked to executive and congressional precedent dating back to 1975, the persian gulf tanker controversy, lebanon, somalia, and grenada, to see where it fits -- grenada, and somalia to see where it fits. this strikes us as a difference that needs to fit within the scope of the statute. if any of those elements are not present, none of what i have said necessarily applies. you have to redo the analysis. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator casey. senator mccord. >> thank you. i want to say that, in many cases, i have heard in the administration tried to justify the means for the end. i know that you have talked about libya and gaddafi and you're handling of this. i want to say that those are separate issues. up here, there are people who have very different opinions about our involvement in libya. but still have strong concerns about the way the administration has handled the the actual process itself. i don't think it is helpful to try to meld the two together. it waters down the issue at hand. i find it humorous, sitting here and the foreign relations committee, the most delivered a body in the world, some would say. basically you have not provided witnesses from the department of justice or the pentagon. we seem to take that as a humorous thing. the administration has basically said that there is no reason for us to get any kind of resolution from congress and yet the senate, today, in its urge to be "relevant" is rushing to give the administration irresolution even though it is basically saying in this case that the senate is irrelevant. i would ask you this one question. what -- now that you have taken this argument and seen the response to have gotten from both sides of the aisle, are you still glad that you traveled this route as it relates to making the argument you have made on the war powers act? >> senator, i believe that is correct. i would not be here if i did not believe that. >> i did not ask that. are you glad that you basically created an issue where no issue had to exist by taking this nearly-defined route and basically sticking a stick in the eye of congress. >> senator, that was not our intent. if you felt that a stick was stuck, that was not the goal. you said the number of things which i thought i should include in my answer. number one, the war powers resolution is not a mechanical device. it has to be construed in light of the facts at the time. otherwise, the 1973 congress would be making decisions instead of the congress of 2011. so you have to take account of the circumstances. secondly, with regard to witnesses, i am the legal adviser of the state department. i put forth my testimony reviews to present on the war parts resolution. this is my this is my duty of jurisdiction. i am here for the conversation. third, it was our position from the beginning that we were acting consistently with the war powers resolution. but we would welcome support because as the senator said, it would be -- the president would always value a bipartisan support for this kind of effort or mission. and finally you asked whether we have made errors. i think that this controversy has probably not played out exactly as somewhat expected if they were to roll the tape back. i'm sure there are many places where some would have merged and i would have been among them, coming up earlier for more briefings and to lay out these legal positions. for my part of that, i take responsibility but i do believe that at the end of the day, the last thing we are saying, senator, the thing we are not saying is that the senate is irrelevant. to the contrary -- >> we're making ourselves irrelevant. let me do this. this is a long answer. i'd like to have just -- i wanted to give the respect of answering, i didn't really want to you answer everything i said. but since you have, i would like to have a couple of extra minutes. do you want to say anymore regarding my opening comments? >> i think the point of my testimony is however the legal question is addressed, there is still fundamentaly the question of what to do with the civilians in libya. that's a decision on which the senate can make a decision this afternoon. through this committee. >> i don't think we'll make any decisions that are different than what you're carrying out. we're rushing to make ourselves irrelevant this afternoon by virtue of passing something out that basically says, you know what it says. let me ask this. the chairman mentioned that since no american is being shot, there are no hostilities. of course by that reasoning we could drop a nuclear bomb on tripoli and we would not be involved in hostilities and it just goes to the sort of preposterous argument that is being made but i do think one of the issues of precedence that you're setting is that predators now, the president of the united states, and i do want to remind you the justice department of this administration has spent lots of time trying to deal with people's rights as it relates to terrorism and that kind of thing, and yet basically what y'all are doing by arguing this narrow case is saying that any president of the united states, republican or democrat, can order predator strikes in any country and that is not hostilities and of course we know what predators do. i think you know what they do and lots of times human beings are not alive after they finish their work. so basically what you're doing is arguing that a president can order predator strikes in anyplace in the world by virtue of this narrow argument that you've taken and that is not hostilities and congress plays no role in that. >> senator, that's not what i'm arguing. obviously if predator strikes were at a particular level or if we were carpet bombing a country using predators that would create a dramatically different situation. but the scenario that i've described to senator kasey is a very different one, within the constraints of this particular mission, without ground troops, the predators are playing a particular role with regard to the elimination of certain kinds of assets of gaddafi that are being used to kill his own civilians. even the numbers that senator kasey mentioned are not close to the kind of level that we would consider to be ones that would trigger the pullout provision. dd so i think the important thing and the question that had been asked is are we presenting a limited position, yes, because all four limitations are what bring it within the line of the statute. we don't say that any element at all by itself couldn't be expanded out or -- out of shape and require re-examination of the war powers resolution. i gave the example of a u.n. security council situation, desert storm, that required approval because of the scale of the operation. >> i think you've established a precedent. this administration has established a precedent of this country by taking this argument, that any president, republican or democrat, can use predators in any country they wish because that is limiteds who timents without congress being involved. i'm not going to ask -- i'm going to probably come to a close quicker than i wanted to because of the time, but we do have aircraft flying over libyan air space, do we not? >> yes, we do. >> that's yes or no. and we do know that, you know, there's numbers of types of weapons that they have that could in fact take down our aircraft that aren't necessarily in fixed positions, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so to say that our men and women in uniform are not in a position to encounter hostilities is -- or involved in hostilities is really pretty incredible and, you know, you cite the fact that hostilities has never been defined. i went back and read the house conference which basically reported out the war powers act , as a matter of fact they tried to make it a lesser level, they started out with armed conflict and then they used the word hostilities and they did so in such a manner to certainly talk about the kinds of conditions that exist today on the ground. so when you say that these are not hostilities, that's just patently not the intent of congress when they passed the war powers act. you introduced something unique, a mathematical formula and i'm sure future presidents will use a mathematical formula, in other words, if we are only doing x percent of the bombing then we're not involved in hostilities. but i find that not in any way to jive with what the house sent out in its reporting language. and i'm just going to close with this because my time is up and i know the chairman is getting impatient, i did not support your nomination. and i thought you're a very intelligent person, obviously, very well learned. but i felt that you had the likelihood to subject u.s. law or to cause it to be lesser important than international law. while i made no statement to that effect publicly, i told that you privately when we met in our office and that's exactly what you've done. you've basically said the united nations has authorized this and there's no need for congress to act and we're going to narrowly define hostilities i would guess at night, however people of your category give high fives, you're talking to other academics about this cute argument that has been utilized but i would say to you that i think you've undermined the credibility of this administration, i think you've undermined the integrity of the war powers act and i think by taking this very narrow approach you've done a great disservice to our country. and i do hope, i do hope that at some point we will look at the war powers act in light of new technology and in light of new conflicts and define it in a way that someone using these narrow and what i would call cute arguments does not have the ability to work around congress. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator corker. i think it's important obviously to have these views out. i was not growing at all impatient. i'm happy to give you extra time. i think it's an important discussion. and as i think you know, senator, i value my friendship and our relationship a lot. but i do have to tell you based on what you just said that your facts are just incorrect. i mean, your basic facts on which you're basing your judgment is incorrect. let me tell you why. >> ok. >> first of all, the president of the united states accepts the constitutionality of the war powers act and sought to live by it. no president has done that yet. >> i didn't argue that. >> but it is a fact. you come to the next point. having done that, the president sent us a letter, before the expiration of the time period. and in the letter, i'm going to put the letter in the record, he says, dear mr. speaker, and the president pro temp of the senate, on march 21 i reported to the congress that the united states, pursuant to requests from the arab league, and authorization by the united nations security council, have acted two days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe to protect the people of libya. he then goes on, i'm not going to read the whole thing, but then he says, thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, i wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by senators kerry, mccain, levin, feinstein, graham, lieberman, which would confirm that the congress supports the u.s. war in libya and both branches are united in supporting the aspirations of the libyan people. he asked us to do that before the expiration of 60 days. but we didn't do it. don't blame the president. the congress of the united states didn't do it. let me tell you why bluntly, because both leaders in both houses were unwilling at that point in time to do it. and we have to, let's be honest about this -- >> i am being very honest. >> you're not being honest -- >> i have the ability to express my opinion just like you do. >> and to use facts just like you do. if you want to get into a debate about this right now i'm glad to do that and i would like -- >> senator, you're not letting me finish my point which is that you're saying the president violated the process here and didn't come to the congress. he did come to the congress. he sent us a letter requesting us to do the authorization and we didn't do it. that's the simple fact here. moreover, moreover there's a constitutional question here because in paragraph b of the war powers act it says that the president shall terminate any use of the united states armed forces with respect to -- where a report was submitted, unless the congress has either declared war or enacted a specific authorization within the 60-day period. so if congress doesn't act, congress can in effect by its lack of action challenge the constitutional right of the president to do something. that's in effect constitutional standoff. and any senator could have gone to the floor of the united states senate with a resolution during those of 0 days. no senator chose to do so. so all i'm saying is, i'm not going to sit here and let everybody throw the dart at the white house saying the president violated this and that when he's the first president to ever say, i accept the constitutionality of the war powers act, secondly, sent us a letter before the expiration of the time asking us to pass the authorization and, thirdly, i'll say this as the chairman, i went to the leaders, nobody wanted too it. o it. so, here we are. so here we are. the real relevant question here is whether or not, i agree with you, i think there are some serious constitutional questions about predators, how do they fit and i think legal advisor kho has accepted that. s accepted that. we need to exercise our responsibility to modernize this. but there fact that hostilities are taking place, and they are, does not mean the united states armed forces have been introduce into those hostilities of their not being shot at or not at risk of being shot at. if there is no risk of escalation or of the mission is narrowly defined. i know none of us want to get trapped in the legalese here. we want to try to do this in the right way, but it is wrong to suggest that somehow the president went outside the constitutional process here when inact, congres us, has done nothing in the 60 days to declare war or not. >> i would just respond that i think the central element of my argument to mr. koh, , i respect his intellect but i don't respect his judgment on this case. the focus of my argument was hostilities. by a nearly defining that are being cute by where you say i support the constitutionality of the war powers act but on the other hand, since we are not really invold in hostilities, we d't really need to deal with congress. that's the part. that just happened on the 15th. i don't think anybody in this body had any idea that the president would take such a narrow, narrow interpretation of hostilities. i don't think anybody knew that. i think the president wishes he had handled this differently because what has happened is, by being cute, they have introduced a whole other debate that should not be taking place. my guess is they might have gotten overwhelming support for a limited operation whether i support it or not. what they have done by trying to have it both ways, which is what they did with the june 15th letter, is interject a debate that has to do with credibility, integrity, and to me, is a great disservice to this country. i stand by what i just said. it is factual. i would be glad to debate this all along. >> hopefully we don't have to do that. without we can do it debating it all along. but i do think it is important. i did hear you say are rushing to get a resolution and i heard you say the senate is irrelevant. i think when you measure those things against the reality of what the president asked us to do, any of this issue is because the senate has [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> barring u.s. ground forces, except in rare cases. last week the u.s. house voted not to authorize libya intervention. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i've said a lot about this in the last weeks. i think most of you know where i stand. i'm not going to tie up the committee with a long opening statement on it. i would say that we had a good hearing. i thought this morning. for those who were able to be there. and i think it was helpful that we heard from the legal advisor to the state department the morning before we do consider this vote. i think he claarified the legal position and the reasoning for some of the administration's approach to this. it may not have satisfied everybody, but i think it was claarified. i think this is the important thing. i'd say this to all my colleagues. i know there are colleagues here who believe that the communication could have been better, that the process could have been held better, senator corker is probably correct that we heard at the last minute about what a particular rationale was with respect to the constitutional grounding. i think we can agree that we are where we are. i'd like if we can to stay as focused and as disciplined as possible in trying to figure out so what's the best way forward? how do we sort of go from where we are now. i think there were powerful reasons for the united states to join with others in creating a no-fly zone. and forcing colonel gaddafi to keep his most powerful and dangerous weapons out of the fight. and if we slice through the fogg of misinformation and we weigh the risks and benefits alongside our values and our interests which are always at stake, i think the argument can be made powerfully that rationale for being there is compelling. i'll reserve comments as we go forward with respect to the amendments. but i do really think the question today is a fairly fundamental one. do we at this particular moment, when gaddafi gaddafi has bunkered down in tripoli, when yesterday the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for him on charges of crimes against humanity, at a moment where armed forces are supporting a nato mission aimed at preventing more such atrocities, do we want to stop the operation? that's really what it kind of comes down to. i think there are some very good amendments that have been well thought out, we've worked them through, that can clarify some issues that need clarification. that can help to refine some of the arguments and even some of the limits. and i think that's healthy and i look forward to that. so i personally believe that the passage of this resolution can be an important step and will certainly be heard by the rest of the world. and i want to emphasize that to the members of the committee. what we're doing here today is not of small consequence. and i have always said to the members and i think you know this, that we're strongest as a country and we advance our interests most effectively when we can find the common ground. i hope we can find that common ground in the course of our deliberations now. so the joint resolution has three critical elements. first it authorizes the president to continue the limited use of armed forces in support of the united states national security policy interests. secondly it provides the authority that expires after one year of the enactment of this resolution and, thirdly, it clearly states that congress does not support and will not support sending ground troops into libya. so i look forward to the amendments and to the debate and senator lugar, i think you have an opening series of proposals. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have a short opening comment prior to that, i simply want to say today the committee will consider perhaps the most important question within its jurisdiction, whether to authorize the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is still engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined, assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that's at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it's an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution it is our responsibility to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process, we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i'm concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities permitting significant expansion of united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would allingt rise the president to -- authorize the president to re-escalate united states military involvement in libya to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. the resolution would only limit the president to actions close in support of the united states national security policy interests, end of quote, and, quote, to enforce the united nations security council resolution 1973, end of quote. this would accommodate much more intense u.s. military action than is currently occurring. the resolution contains no legally binding prohibition on the introduction of american ground troops in libya. it addresses this issue only through nonbinding language indicating the congress, quote, does not support, end of quote, the deployment of ground troops. the administration has said it has no plans to introduce ground troops into libya, strong majorities of both the house and -- house of congress oppose the introduction of ground forces, from all indications the american people do not want troops there. i see no reason why this prohibition should not be binding. the resolution fails to counteract the president's assertion that current u.s. operations do not amount to hostilities. and therefore do not de-- require congressional authorization under the war powers resolution. allowing this assertion to stand unchallenged would increase the risk that presidents will conduct similar military interventions in the future without seeking or receiving congressional authorization. the resolution also acts sufficient -- lacks sufficient provision for congressional oversight of the operation, their costs, their potential impact on other u.s. national security objectives. i have offered five amendments to address these concerns that have been circulated to all members. they would, first, narrow the authorized role of the united states military forces to intelligence sharing, refueling, search and rescue assistance and planning support. second, establish a legally binding prohibition on the deployment of ground forces. third, specify the war powers resolution applies to current u.s. military operations in libya and that continuation of these operations would require congressional authorization. fourth, requires specific reports on the libya operations on strict deadlines, and, fifth, express the sense of the congress that post war reconstruction costs should be borne primarily by the libyan people and the arab league nations. i welcome the chance to consider these amendments and the amendments offered by other members of the committee. i would like to be a co-sponsor of senator web's second degree amendment to my amendment on ground troops and i thank the chairman for the opportunity to make this statement. >> well, senator lugar, i thank you. you served on this committee longer than i have and i'm always pleased to be able to work with you on these issues. and i'm grateful to you for the cooperation that we get in doing so. i believe there is and i thank you for the contributions of these amendments. i think they've been very important. i think there's broad consensus on four of your five amendments. potentially with some second-degree amendments. and so what i'd like to do is save the amendments on libyan assets if we can to be considered at the end of the business meeting, but if we start with lugar amendment number one, regarding the sense of congress on reconstruction and stabilization of costs, i'm not aware of any second degree amendments, senator lugar if you want to speak to your amendment, please do. >> the purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the congress about funding reconstruction and stabilization costs in libya. it would provide that such costs should be borne primarily by the libyan people and the arab league countries. which requested military intervention in libya. the president has emphasized that our military involvement in libya was undertaken in significant part in response to requests from the libyan opposition and the arab league. and for this reason the -- it's appropriate these parties should bear the responsibility for stabilizing libya following the conflict. expressing this ex pe pecktation now will allow these parties to plan appropriately to meet such costs. i urge members to support my amendment. >> i will support your amendment. i think it's a good amendment. i'm not aware of any second degree amendments. is there any further debate on senator lugar's amendment? if not all those in favor say aye. opposed, ncaa. the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted unanimously. senator lugar, you want to proceed to your second amendment. >> the second amendment -- >> mr. chairman. >> yes, senator corker. >> it was my understanding that because of the nature of my amendment, number 10, that at this point it was going to go and then lugar number two because they are related and the outcome of one affects the outcome of the other. both sides had agreed to that, was my understanding. >> yeah, no, we -- senator lugar, if that's all right with you, we don't have any problem with that. >> i'm proposing i think it's corker number 10. we had an interesting hearing today and a number of people on our committee were here to be a part of that hearing. on june 15, something very interesting happened, unique happened and that was that the president sent over a letter stating that we were not involved in hostilities in libya. now, i think people on both sides of the aisle have thought that was not the case or at least the vast majority of people have thought, i think in the senate, that when you're involved in bombing military installations and doing what predators do among populations that that in fact is hostilities. and so my concern, which i expressed earlier today in the hearing and have all along, is the precedent that this sets. the president has said that he believes that the war powers act is constitutional. but then what he's done is chosen to define hostilities in a way that is very different than it was reported out of congress in 1973. and so what this amendment seeks to do is to say that the president, within 30 days, can either state that he believes the war powers act to be unconstitutional, many presidents have done that, or to state that he in fact believes the war powers act is constitutional and we are in fact involved in hostilities. if we allow this war to go ahead as it is and allow the president to be able to define what hostilities are, what that does, whether it's a republican president or a democratic president, and candidly i think democrats were probably more in general about republican presidents from time to time, what that would do is allow our president in the future, by his own definition, to decide what hostilities are and therefore to not consult with congress on this issue. so all this does is calls the president to state clearly one way or another, we're eith ever involved in hostilities or he doesn't believe the war powers act to be constitutional and i believe without this clarification what's happened, and i think it's happened in shock to many, is what we're doing is setting a dangerous precedent for all presidents, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. and i would urge support for this amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> i was going to -- >> go ahead. >> please go ahead. i'll follow you. >> let me try to describe for colleagues why i think senator lugar's amendment, which i will support, addresses this question but without creating a dilemma that frankly the administration simply can't resolve. in the testimony today, many of you were here and heard it, some of you were not able to be here, but the legal advisor, howard koh, said the following, because the war powers resolution represented a broad compromise between competing views on the proper division of constitutional authorities, the question of whether a particular set of facts constitutes hostilities for the purposes of the resolution has been determined more by interbranch practice than by a narrow parising of dicks eagsary definitions. both branches have recognized that different situations may call for different responses. and specifically he pointed to how under president ford when this question came up, the folks then sort of working on the issues said, the term should not be necessarily read to include situations where the nature of the mission is limited. situations that do not involve full military engagements with which the resolution, war powers act, was principley concerned. where the exposure of u.s. forces is limited, i.e. situations involving sporadic military or paramilitary attacks on our armed forces, and weigh the risk of escalation is therefore limited and it goes on, now, it's clear that for 40 years there's been a struggle over this question of when do or don't you consider that armed forces are actually introduced which is the language of the war powers resolution into hostilities. and i would simply say to my friend that senator lugar's amendment does declare, i'll read from it, declare the authority for the limited use of the united states armed forces, is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization under the war powers resolution. and as such is our determination that we're in hostilities. per se. because he adopts that it's under the war powers. but under senator corker's amendment he requires something further. he asks, he requires a certification from the president that, one, the president either deems the war powers resolution to be constitutional and acknowledges that hostilities are occurring, or the president deems the war powers resolution to be unconstitutional. the problem is the president has made it clear through his legal advisor and through their own statements they don't believe either. you can't pass something that requires the president to certify something that he just doesn't believe. when we're already adequately placing the power of the congress to declare that this fits the war powers act and is hostilities. our declaration is what matters, not requiring something further from the president. senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think it for the record bears at least repeating how we got to the war powers act over the see are tofe of president nixon -- over the veto of president nixon. congress decided the president's opinion of constitutional notwithstanding, we overrode his veto. the congress overrode his veto. i think that that is something we should think about as we address your particular concern here. there's no question that presidents as commanders in chief don't necessarily want to wait on congress and they're worried about what might happen if congress has to decide issues of national security. last week in the house of representatives they made a dog's breakfast out of the war powers act and our situation in libya. because they refused to authorize the activity and then refused to defund the activity. and you can understand why commanders in chief usually ask congress just to get out of the way when it comes to national security. when the house reaches a conclusion like that. i would say with all due respect, senator corker, and i respect the president very much, his opinion on the constitutionality of this is irrelevant. we have established is the law of the land and we are enforcing it and i think senator lugar's action is very clear and direct. that we're saying, this fits under the war powers act. these are hostilities under the war powers act. should the president defy us and i hope he does not, i would say at that point this goes to another branch of government. the judicial branch. we passed a law over the president's veto, it's the law of the land, and the president's opinion on its constitutionality i don't think is irrelevant -- a relevant consideration at this point. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i feel very strongly that the war powers act has been triggered and that the president had obligation to come for authorization and we have an obligation to deal with this by resolution. and i'm going to support senator lugar's amendment because i think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that the war powers act in fact was triggered, the president should respect that. i don't think we can by legislation revolve the conflict between the executive and legislative branch on. this i just don't think we can do it. there may even be other options that the president believes, other than the two that senator corker has listed in his options. i think senator corker, what you're trying to do is make it crystal clear about the war powers but i don't think we can by legislation resolve this issue and this resolution. we may want to revisit the war powers act. and maybe that's what we should be doing. but in this resolution, dealing with the libya situation, we make it clear that the war powers act has been triggered and i think senator lugar's amendment makes that even stronger and i will support it, but i think your amendment takes us in a direction that really is not appropriate for us to do. >> i'd just add to what the senator said think a neglected to mention this, but senator lugar's amendment, paragraph b, page two, specifically states that our actions and he defines what they are in fact constitute hostilities. so there's a very specific embrace of the war powers act and of the fact of hostilities. is there any further -- yeah, senator corker. >> so i have accomplished what i wanted to accomplish. i think that the administration has been cute in their response and i think has created a many fire -- mini fire storm in congress by being cute, one tick too cute, and their response about whether we have hostilities ongoing or not. i realize the vote will be against and especially in light of the fact that senator lugar has claarified this and that's why i wanted to go in advance with him, but i do want to say one more time that i think that a precedent is being set here where a president by himself can decide what hostilities are or aren't and my sense is if we let it stand as it is, we're going to have some other issues to deal with down the road that are going to be very much in conflict. so i withdraw the amendment. >> well, senator corker, as i said earlier today, i have great respect for your contribution to the committee and your participation here and your thoughts on it. i just -- i think that history has shown that this question of hostilities is not necessarily one of cuteness, it's one of judgment and particularly where the particular categories fall the way they do and i would ask simply that this record of this deliberation reflect the testimony of legal advisor harold koh. i would put that in the record at this point in time so that is clear for people who study these issues and that said, is there any further debate on this amendment? yes, senator coons >> if i might, procedurally, are we at lugar two? >> no, we're at -- >> corker's withdrawn. >> he withdrew. i just thought, mr. chairman, procedurally it was important for those of us trying to follow the flow of the argument, what i took from the dialogue back and forth was that many of us agree that it is important to clarify whether or not the interpretation of hostilities being proffered is one that we september -- accept. and the lugar amendment, lugar two, strongly disagrees with that and suggests that we are currently engaged in hostilities and that as senator carden said the war powers act is triggered. i would respectfully agree that i think the best path forward is for to us assert an act. i do think after this morning's hearing that there are questions being raised about future conflicts. there are important questions of precedent, as senators corker and lugar have raised about cyber war, about drones, about remote attacks that i do think are worth our consideration once we get past today's deliberation that i think are heavily influenced by the unique circumstances or the unusual facts that pertain with the libyan conflict. >> i agree with you completely and i think we said at this morning's hearing, i think all of us are going to need to spend some time at this point dealing with the issue of the war powers act and trying to figure out what remote warfare or cyberwarfare and drones and so forth are going to trigger and not trigger. so it's been a very healthy contribution to it. with that in mind, the procedure right now would be to vote first on the corker amendment and -- sorry, i didn't hear. i apologize completely. in that case then the pending amendment is the lugar amendment number two. any further debate on lugar amendment number two? >> just briefly, i intend to support the amendment and state that while i do support, it i continue to have questions about the constitutionality of the war powers resolution. >> we then will vote now on lugar number two. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. >> i voted no on this. >> yes, sir. >> record will so reflect and we now go to lugar number three. >> mr. chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to establish a legally binding prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to deploy u.s. ground forces in libya. the kerry-mccain resolution allows for uncertainty on this point. it contains language indicates that congress, quote, does not support, end of quote, the deployment of ground troops. but this language is nonbinding and it would leave open the possibility the president would rely on the authorization contained in the resolution to deploy ground troops. given that vital u.s. interests are not implicated in libya and the united states military is already taxed by deployments in afghanistan and iraq, it is appropriate for congress to prohibit the deployment of ground forces in libya. if the president felt it was necessary to deploy ground troops in libya at some point in the future, under my amendment he would still have the option of coming to congress to seek authorization for such a deployment. such a future authorization would override the prohibition contained in my amendment. senator boxer has asked that she be added as a co-sponsor of this amendment and i ask that she be so added. >> absolutely, without objection, so ordered. >> in addition, senator webb is has proposed some modifications to my amendment of which i am supportive. his second degree amendment would expand my amendment to prohibit the deployment of u.s. ground forces in libya for post conflict roles such as peace keeping. it would also extend the prohibition to prevent the united states from deploying private contractors on the ground in libya. i appreciate these constructive additions to my amendment and i ask members to support both my amendment and senator webb's second degree amendment. >> thank you, senator lugar. it's my understanding there are two second degree amendments but before that, senator boxer has asked to be heard. >> thank you. i just want to thank senator lugar very much for this amendment. as some people know who follow the action on the floor, few of us had a good colloquy with senator kerry on this. and clearly senator kerry was very direct, he said there was nothing in the underlying bill that authorizes the use of ground troops, but there's nothing that prohibits the use of ground troops. and i think that this amendment is very appropriate and i'm very glad senator kerry is supporting it and i wonder if i might do this. i'm also very supportive of what senator webb is trying to do here which is not to allow ground troops in any peace keeping force and some other operations. i want to make sure if i could through the chair, ask senator webb if his amendment would preclude any type of funding for others to do the peace keeping work or is it just aimed at boots on the ground? >> it would not and if the chair would allow, maybe i should explain what the second degree amendment does. as senator lugar points out, the attempt of this amendment is -- the purpose of this amendment is to provide some clarifications to the original amendment that senator lugar offered and i appreciate him offering it. it basically states that no funds should be obligated or expended for deploying units or members of the armed forces on the ground in libya for the purposes of engaging in ground combat or supporting stabilization or international peace keeping operations following the removal of the gaddafi regime. there's been a lot of discussion back and forth as to what it really means when we say no boots on the ground, the house, as many here know, voted with 405 votes to prohibit boots on the ground, but the question has not really been answered is what happens after gaddafi falls, what do we do? just to answer senator boxer's question, this is not intended to address the issue of funding at all. the language, which was perfected by legislative council says, no members for the purposes of supporting the stabilization operations, not funds, but what this amendment also does is to say that there shouldn't be contracts for private security contractors to do those sorts of things, but it lists two important exceptions. one is for the immediate personal defense of united states government officials, including diplomatic representatives or for rescuing members of nato forces. and then in an toment to separate what we're doing now from what's going to happen after the gaddafi regime inevitably does leave, it says that if the president determines and certifies to the congress that action is necessary, then he can come to the congress and ask for legislation to be enacted specifically authorizing any further operations. this allows us to clarify really what this debate is about and it allows the administration to come back to us if they have a different look at things in the future. we can't really predict what's going to happen in the coming months. and again i very much appreciate senator lugar's co-sponsorship of this second degree amendment. >> there are some issues that are raised by virtue of that and i'll raise them in a moment. but i want to let some other colleagues have a chance here. i'll come back to it. >> senator webb, if i could clarify. so you understand -- your understanding of the impact of your second degree amendment, would it prohibit united states funds from being used to support or sustain multilateral peace keeping? my understanding from what you just said is no. >> it would not prohibit funds, it prohibits funds for units or members or private security contractors to do those functions. >> if i could just interrupt here for a second. unfortunately that's not the way the language would be interpreted, the way it's written. i would be happy to try to work with you but it specifically prohibits funds from being used for the purposes of supporting stabilization or international peace keeping operations following the removal. that could be interpreted to mean that even our contribution to the united nations could not necessarily be spent with respect to peace keeping. it's frankly just too broad. if there's a way to try to narrow that, i'd be happy to try to work with you. i understand exactly what you're trying to do. but i also think we ought to keep our eye on the ball here. what we're trying to do is come up with a clear and specific authorization with respect to the armed forces. and i think if we start reaching too far here and trying to think of every possible scenario post gaddafi we might wind up tying ourselves in nots sometimes just by reaching a little too far. i do think your earth on contractors ought to be -- effort on contractors ought to be part of it. i would be prepared to accept. that i think that makes sense and it ought to be part what have is potentially bhutto boots on the ground and the military operation. but if we go so far as to say no funds can be spent supporting stabilization, i mean, that can be economic development assistance. >> if the chair will allow me to respond to. that we sat down with legislative council on this and actually someone who spent four years drafting legislation as a committee councilman in an earlier life, if you read this it says no funds for the purpose of deploying units or members for those purposes. it doesn't say no funds for the purposes. now, if somebody wants to put a further clarification in there, but that's -- that is the way that statute would be read. >> supposing, would you accept perhaps changing as a modification, change the word supporting to participating in? >> i wouldn't have a problem with it. >> so, would you -- so is there any objection to modifying the webb amendment to that effect? if there isn't, we consider it so modified and then we will take them again in the order that we need to here which is second degree is the first amendment. i think it's the corker second degree, isn't it? >> no, webb. >> webb second degree. >> if webb's is accepted, mine would not be relevant. it was slightly narrower and there was some question as to whether you -- no, you had questions as to whether you were going to accept webb before he came into the meeting and now that you are, that makes mine not necessary. >> i did. i was prepared to -- as long as we were able to revise it with respect to that support and we have so revised it, so i would be prepared to accept it. is there any further debate on it? >> i don't want to put a fly on the armor but i did have a question of mr. webber and mr. lugar. in reading this last night, both your second degree as well as the principle amendment, the thought occurred to me about the deployment of a seal team or a special operation that became necessary. is the exception in yal's opinion, that's a certain -- y'all's opinion, that's a southern term for both of you, is it y'all's opinion that the security of american personnel and/or the rescue of nato forces could be construed to be broad enough to give the latitude to deploy a seal team for a specific target mission and bring them out? or would they have to come to the congress for approval then? >> it would be my reading of this amendment and also there are no terminologies in this amendment that address national command authority. >> so the answer is that restriction wouldn't exist by virtue of this language. >> in my reading of it would not. >> that would be the samer to me. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you can just clarify the change in language that you're looking for? senator webb's amendment. >> the change in language is in line two, page two of webb amendment -- the fourth word, supporting would be changed to read participating in stabilization. senator durbin. >> mr. president, i'm -- or mr. chairman, i'm sorry to belabor this but i was surprised that senator webb's answer to your question. because i thought that he was precluding the deployment of american troops except in the specific instances of rescue. and what his answer was and i'd ask him to clarify, is that you could send in a seal team on a mission under national command authority which suggests to me that the president could send in more than a seal team under national command authority. so could senator webb clarify that? >> it was not the intention of this amendment to address that part of our national security. >> could i suggest this? so that we don't step in any holes we don't mean to step into. that we temporarily set aside this amendment, that we have staff from both senator webb and my staff get together to make sure, any staff that would like to, go in the back room and make sure that we're in agreement as to the meaning of the language and then we can come back and we can deal with this with respect to senator lugar's first degree amendment. >> mr. chairman, that's certainly acceptable, but if i understand what senator webb is trying to do, he's trying to require the president to come back to congress if he wishes for us to participate in the stabilization effort using american troops. i think that's a reasonable request. but i think that's the main thrust that you're trying to do is say that it requires authorization. am i wrong in that? >> there's an exception paragraph here which speaks to certain situations in which the president might be able to deploy for the rescue of government personnel, for dealing with emergency for nato, etc. >> but that is the same exceptions that's in the body of the resolution. so it's consistent with what we've already put into the body. i think what senator webb is trying to do here is make sure we don't get involved in a long-term stabilization presence without specific authorization from congress. >> there's another way of skinning this. we always at the end of this process ask for the -- ask for permission of the committee to do technical changes necessary. i think the intent is clear, i think this would qualify as a technical change if necessary. so, yes. >> mr. chairman, i understand what's been said by senator carden and senator webb but that's not the question senator isaacson asked. senator isaacson asked if the president could send in what appears to be a combat force in his case a seal team, with a mission that goes beyond the two exceptions. and i heard the answer from senator webb, yes. so it's no longer a question of precluding deployment except in certain instances, it's precluding deployment except in certain instances and still not precluding the president's authority as commander in chief to send in a seal team, a brigade or more for some combat mission. and i think that blows a hole right in the middle of this conversation. >> that's clearly not what is meant by national command authority. >> mr. chairman, could i be heard? i don't get the excitement here about this. because the commander in chief can do that every day in the week anywhere in the world. there's nothing in senator webb's response to this that should surprise anybody. if the commander in chief believes it's necessary to send in troops anywhere in the world, including libya, for our national security, he can do that. >> if i may clarify the term then, because there seems to be some confusion. national command authority is a term of art for the sorts of things that happen when osama bin laden was taken out, this happened to be a seal team unit but they were under the direction actually of the c.i.a. and that is beyond the intent here, i think senator carden hit the nail on the head. what we're trying to do is to make very clear that this prohibition and everyone keeps talking about during this period of time against ground forces should continue after gaddafi leaves so we don't end up in the same situation that we were in, for instance, in beirut in 1983. >> can i -- i want a second. i think the language here is actually pretty clear, folks. and i'm comfortable with it, it is paragraph a that simply says that the money can't be obligated for deploying units or members of the armed forces on the ground in libya for the purposes of engaging in ground combat operations or participating in stabilization or international peace keeping operations following the removal of muammar gaddafi from government. and during the transition to a new government in libya. it's clearly limited in time, space, operation, intent and i think under those circumstances is really part of the overall effort to say american troops are not going to be on the ground in libya and that's the way it's understood. is there any further discussion with respect to what is now the webb second degree? >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, first of all, i'm going to support both the second degree and senator lugar's amendment but, you know, it's with mixed feelings. i mean, i think this underscores what we're doing here. i mean, we can't fight hostilities with 100 generals, you need eight commander in chief who -- you need a commander in chief who has full authority to do what he needs to do and this thing comes to us in just a messy, messy background. you know, we've got nato commitments we've got to think about, we have other essential security issues around the world including afghanistan and pakistan and yemen and somalia. we got looming insolvency of this country which gets worse every day and a lack of a definitional goal of where we're headed in turkey and to put all these things together and try to make these constitutional and other decisions, it couldn't -- it couldn't be in a worse case scenario and background than what we're dealing with here. so i'm going to support it but i have real reservations about it. thank you, mr. chairman mr. chair. >> welcome to the united states congress. [laughter] if there's no further discussion, then we will vote on the webb amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the webb amendment to the lugar amendment is adopted. now senator lugar's amendment is the pending amendment is there any further discussion on the lugar amendment? if not, all those in favor of the lugar amendment say aye. opposed, ncaa. the ayes have it. the lugar amendment is adopted. we now move to lugar amendment number four. >> the amendment 4 is to narrow the scope of military operations in libya. in particular, my amendment would restrict u.s. military operations to search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, and operational planning. it would preclude air strikes carried out by u.s. air nes.sport armed groandro as i noted in my opening statement, as currently drafted, the resolution would allow significant escalation of our military operations in libya. this could include a return to the lead role the united states forces played at the beginning of the conflict with the united states carried out in terms of airstrikes on a daily basis. i believe that such an expensive u.s. military role in libya is and why is. i urge members to narrow the scope of our military involvement -- is unwise. i urge members to narrow the scope of our military involvement. >> senator lugar, this is the only amendment of yours that i feel compelled to oppose. i would say to my colleagues -- even in the house of representatives, where many of us had some questions about what their approach was, they voted down a similar restriction. they voted it down. in effect, this would really needlessly tie the hands of the commander-in-chief and i think it tells nato, it tells gaddafi, and it tells the rest of the world that we will not finish the job here and we will not leave in the capacity of nader the current efforts, limited as they are -- capacity of nato the current efforts, limited as they are. they have the ability to be able to discriminate between who is who. you have the ability to watch for considerable time what is happening before you do something peering and because of that, you are able to do it better -- do something. and because of that, you're able to do it better. i know others are well versed on this. you are aware of the capacity we get through that. because we have the ability to survey the battlefield for a long time, we can distinguish between rebels, between gaddafi forces. we can see where people are going to end the discrimination gives us a greater ability to protect civilian lives. if we were to vote -- i think it is an unintended consequence. i completely understand what he is trying to achieve. but i do believe that it would tie the hands of the operation in a very significant way and damage our ability to be successful. so i will oppose this amendment. is there any further debate on the amendment? if there is no further debate, the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. menendez. >> know by proxy. >> mr. harding. mr. casey. >> no. >> mr. web. mr. durbin. mr. udall. >> no by proxy. >> mr. lugar appeared >. >> aye. >> mr. demint. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. rosbarasso. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> five ayes and 13 nos. >> senator you goal is in new mexico or they have had -- senator udall is a new mexico where they're having severe fires. he was unable to return last night. we now turn to senator menendez -- excuse me, senator lugar. >> the purpose of this amendment is for congress to conduct oversight of any continued u.s. military operations in libya. it would report on the cost of the operations and how they're paid for. it would also require periodic reporting on the impact of the ongoing operations in libya on other u.s. and nato military operations, including operations against the taliban and al qaeda and afghanistan. reporting on these issues is not provided for in the carry-mccain resolution. given that the resolution would authorize military operations that could go on as much as a year and could expand in scope from current u.s. operations, i believe it is important that congress have the necessary tools to conduct oversight of these issues and to know their cause. i urge members to support the amendment. >> this is another excellent addition i believe senator corker has a secondary. i think senator corker originally had 15 and he's willing to do 30. a think that is reasonable to have adequate oversight. senator corker, would you like to offer your oversight to? >> sure. i would like to change my amendment to request 30 days recording. >> any objection to modifying the original corker amendment at this time? if not, it is so modified turn all those in favor? all opposed? ayes have it. all those in favor of liberman and number five? all those opposed? the ayes have it. thank you, senator lugar and now we will continue to senator menendez's amendment. >> this is amendment no. 6 which i have asked unanimous consent to modify, unerring the reporting requirements by eliminating section c, line 6- 13. this amendment is pretty simple. i would hope it would have the support of all our colleagues. on december 21, 1988, pan am 103 exploded over scotland, killing two hundred 70 people 189 were united states citizens current 34 them were from my home state of new jersey. 12 years later, the individual who was convicted of conspiracy for planting bombs that brought down a flight was sent to a scottish prison to serve a sentence. in august 2009, he was released on compassionate grounds by the scottish government who said that he had limited time to live. he currently is still alive and lives in tripoli. he has been evading justice from france far more than 20 years this is the opportunity to learn who carried out the plant, who made the bomb, and this person who should return to justice. it states that the president shall urge the transitional national council and any successor government of libya to cooperate with and for debate in the investigation. its slate -- it states that the president shall consider the cooperation of successor libya with making decisions about confiscated property and u.s. assistance. it has a more narrow reporting requirement. i think justice dictates it and it is our to need to get justice for the families of these american citizens. i hope i can have support of the full committee. >> i think it is an excellent amendment. i do not think anyone has been more diligent than you have been in raising the proper questions and seeking out accountability on this topic. i think a lot of people thank you for it. i do. and i join with you thinking that, with the modification, this is a good amendment. i will support this amendment. is there any further debate on this amendment? if not, all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it. senator corker, you have a series of amendments. >> yes. it is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the chairman. basically, it is ambiguous in the underlying text as to whether -- as to what the differences between our military and political goals are. what it seeks to clarify is the removal of gaddafi as our political goal, not a military goal as stated and i think that is acceptable to the chairman. if further clarifies what our real role in libya is today. >> i agree with you. i think it is a good amendment. it does clarify the goals. i think the amendment is self- explanatory just on its reading. i appreciate the distinction that you have drawn. i think that is an important distinction and it fits the white house definition of a policy. with that said, is that any further debate with respect to this amendment? if not, all those in favor of the corker amendment no. 7? all those opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. we're going to bypass corker no. 8 and good to corker #9. >> that is correct. we agreed momentarily to have 30-day briefings as it relates to one portion of this resolution. this would make sure that, in all areas of this resolution, we get 30-day updates. again, i would assume this would be acceptable to all. >> is there any debate? if not, as modified for 30 days, all those in favor of the quarter amendment no. 19? all those opposed? the ayes have it. >> #9, right now, the resolution authorizes military force for a year. nato has its mission only through september 27. what this amendment would do is state that the military operations are authorized for a year unless nato suspends its operations sooner, at which time our operations will also be suspended. it sinks of what we're doing -- doing andp what we're what nato has stated through its resolution. >> senator corker, let me ask you to be willing to make one modification to it. as it now reads, because it says on the democratization, it is possible for somebody to interpret that as simply being september 27, which is when the current authorization changes. i think it has to reflect the likelihood -- obviously, everybody hopes this will be over by then. but if it does not, we do not want to have the authorization to send a message to colonel gaddafi that this is tied to. on the date that no operations and for one year after enactment, if you do that, i think we are unambiguous. would that be acceptable? >> that is fine. >> is there any objection? if it is not, then it is modified. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it. >> are we doing corker no. 11? >> senator rubio, i am understand you plan to offer only one of your three amendments. >> that is correct. i want to withdraw 12 and 13. >> without objection, they are withdrawn. you want to speak to no. 14? >> i do. but it would pass around the text could and would like unanimous consent to modify no. 14 -- at around the text. i would like unanimous consent to modify no. 14. it reads that the president should recognize as a course of non-binding the tnc as the legitimate government of libya and that funds frozen can be drawn for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance and to ensure full payment of awards as issued by the foreign claims settlement commission. i believe those are the victims of terrorist acts by gaddafi. that is what the amendment, if adopted, would be. >> thank you very much. that is a very constructive amendment for a number of reasons. first of all, many of us have been very concerned about the issue of the trans national council. as you know, chancellor merkel in germany recently visited and recognize the trans national council. others have suggested that the united states ought to be doing so. there are technical reasons and clearer legal exigencies as to why we have not. they relate to a lot of different things, including the behavior standards that are applied to colonel gaddafi at this time under international law. with that said, i think the sentiment expressed by the senate of the united states is an important message to that council. it is a message to gaddafi. it is a message to the world and our allies were engaged in this endeavor. at the same time, i think i raised this issue of originally in one of our hendry in -- hearings and we put a legislature with respect to the use of the gaddafi frozen assets and the long-term payment. i think one of the benefits of a successful outcome in libya, when it happens, is that this is a country of 6 million people. it is a smaller population than the population in my stead, a massachusetts. but it is an enormous country with vast assets, materially its assets from oil. i think it is possible to have a post-gaddafi effort current in the meantime, our expenses are important. i think the senators appropriately wanted to encompass in this resolution some reflection of our need to deal with those expenses. i think they have done a good job of doing that. we have embrace that. senator rubio has graciously accepted that as part of his amendment. so i personally will support this amendment. i think it is a good one. senator lugar, i think you wanted to comment. >> mr. chairman, i am doubtful about the current value of this amendment for these reasons. the tnc is self appointed and not elected. it does not represent all of libyan society. as has been commented during our debates, we really do not know who all the rebels are. in addition, representatives of in areas -- there are legal complications to recognizing the tnc. it could have the perverse effect of absolving the current libyan regime, including compliance with u.n. security council resolutions because there would no longer be acting on behalf of the libyan state. recognition of a successor government of libya is, in my judgment, best left until the end of the conflict and not prejudge before the parameters of the successor government are resolved. for these reasons, i will oppose the amendment. >> maybe senator rubio has had the opportunity to meet with the members of the rebel government. and maybe has met with all of them and knows. i just feel very uncomfortable. i like the intent of what you are doing. i support what we're doing in libya. but for me, i just feel uncomfortable could these kinds of things can come back and bite you. that has been my experience in life when you really do not know for sure. i think this administration is looking at all of this and they are weighing the same questions that senator lugar opposed. i am very respectful of this amendment and its intent and respectful of might chairman in supporting it. i do want the proceeds that we get from gaddafi to go to reimbursement. i actually like my friends amendment. this one is a little more vague about how we distribute it. i would oppose this unless the senator would like to work with us and modify it in some way. >> on the issue of the transitional council, let me say a couple of things. obviously, this is nonbinding language. it would be the decision of the president ultimately to decide where we go here. one of the keys of this ending as soon as possible is to convince the inner circle of gaddafi that his days are numbered and that they better abandon him and what he is doing there. this is critical to that. obviously, a lot will have to happen after he is gone, one way up -- one way or the other come in terms about one in the future of the country. other countries have already done this. i think that the united states doing it or at least is different from this congress that the president should do it will really give added weight to those within the inner circle of muammar gaddafi and think it will accelerate the process. i think it is important that a statement like this be made. >> i am not the caboose on this particular amendment. if it runs into trouble, i want to reserve the right to offer my standing. >> you always have this right. we can deal with a division or a separate amendment. i anderson appeared you are not -- i understand. you're not exhibiting some traditional about this, are you? >> i have learned that being insecure is the best way to act. >> will then you are now secure. >> i think there are tedious separate issues. one is the recognition of the transitional national council. the other is the reimbursement of the funds for the cost of operations. i support senator isaacson is position on the reimbursement of funds for the costs. let me explain why oppose the resolution on recognition. this resolution is one where congress is exercising its constitutional authority. when we have troops that are in this delay. that is what -- we should be involved in that. the responsibility of recognition rests with the president. i would suggest that we can weigh in at the proper time. but i don't think this is the appropriate time or the appropriable to weigh in on the recognition of the transitional national council. so i will oppose apart and offer a second -- and offer a separate amendment. >> we will have to vote on this amendment as divided by a section -- not numbered. anyway, section 1 and section 2. is there further debate on it? >> a legal adviser suggested today that the reason that the recognition has not happened is that it strengthens the ability that senator lugar mention for the u.s. to hold legally council in international chorus of the good doctor regime. i also wonder if it holds any issues in securing reimbursement potentially or a settlement of claims. i do not know if it plays any role with that. i agree with a lot of the goals set senator rubio has laid out, naming late wrapping this up and sending signals to the leadership around did not be that we support his rapid removal or departure from power. but, at the end of the day, lacking a clear resolution between those two points, i am inclined to leave it to the judgment of the department of state. >> i understand completely every colleague warning to reserve their right to this end of the according as they see fit. with respect to the second part of this, obviously, that is being worked on right now through all the legal hoops and we do have legislation before us in the senate that will further that. this is a sense of the senate so that it does not tie anybody's hands. >> i think it is important to understand that, even though we do may be symbolic nature here, it does send a message. i think most of you believe that, but people involved in this conflict back to libya are paying attention to this and they will have an impact psychologically on how they behave. i think it is important for us to send a message the tnc as the legal government, but i also think it would be dangerous to send the message that the u.s. senate has refused to recognize them. if there's any doubt about that, i would rather withdraw the amendment instead of having a vote on that. >> good idea. >> by unanimous consent, you allow me to and amend my amendment -- to unamend my amendment. >> actually, i would ask you to withdraw, if you would, to modify your amendment and the and withdraw section one with respect to the division to peace. we will vote on division to. is there -- is there any objection to senator menendez modifying? therefore, we will vote on the rubio amendment as modified. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it. that brings this now to a vote on final passage. is there any further comment with respect to final passage on the resolution? if not, the clerk will call the roll. >> very briefly. can i include my statement as to why we voted against? >> absolutely. statements of all senators with respect to their votes will be placed in the record as it stated live and in full. may i just say a word to all the members of the committee before the final vote? i want to express my appreciation for the way in which we were able to proceed through this marked up. this can be complicated. it can be contentious. everybody has worked unbelievably diligently and in good faith to work through the best interest of our country. as chair, i just want to express my appreciation to everybody for the cooperative way that this has been approached. i think it has been very responsible and the outcome reflects that. with that, will the clerk please call role. >> aye. >> mr. menendez. >>aye. >> mr. casey. >> aye. >> mr. koonz. >> aye. >> mr. udall. >> aye by proxy. demint.in >> no by proxy. >> mr. isaacson. mr. barasso. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> the resolution is approved. hopefully, we will take it up on the senate floor. i want to thank all members for their attendance minority views will be reflected in the report. if there is any technical change that needs to be made, we will work it with senator lugar. we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the legislation authorizing military action in libya for 1 years but barring ground forces except in certain cases is likely to come up july 11. after four and a half years and two presidents, defense secretary robert gates is set to retire this week in he will be replaced by leon panetta. you can watch the defense secretary's retirement sermon live. search, watch, click, and a share -- that is washington your way. >> in a few moments, tim pawlenty on foreign policy. in about an hour, president obama's comments in iowa about manufacturing jobs here in after that, joe lieberman and tom coburn on their proposal to cut medicare costs and reduce the debt. >> tomorrow morning, former house intelligence committee chairman peter hoekstra will take questions about libya and the war powers act and the situation in afghanistan. we will talk about the economy and trade with former senator byron dorgan. and we will speak with regina benjamin. "washington journal" every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> several live the best to tell you about tomorrow morning. the senate commerce committee will look into data security and privacy. members will hear from representatives of government agencies as well as business and consumer groups on the collection and security of personal information. that is here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then on our companion network, c-span 3, at 10:30 a.m. eastern, a hearing on the impact of supreme court rulings on corporate behavior. witnesses before the senate judiciary committee were scheduled to include betty duke's, the lead and plaintiffs in the class-action suit on the behalf of a group against wal-mart. >> join the heritage foundation book party for an coulterville and her new book is "economic -- party for ann coulter and her new book "demonic." weekend schedules are in your in box. >> good morning karen >> temple linty criticize the foreign policies of president obama -- >> good morning. >> tim pawlenty criticized the foreign policies of president obama. >> advance in the cause of thoughtful and discussion and debate. i am thankful for your hospitality and your presence here this morning. i want to speak plainly about a number of opportunities and dangers we face today in the middle east. we have a situation where the revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and more prosperous arab world. from morocco to the arabian gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility. now is not the time to retreat from freedoms rise. yet, at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-leaning. just as the people of egypt, tunisia, libya, syria, and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical islam see a chance to rise political turmoil into power. the united states has a vital stake in the future of this region. we have been presented with a challenge as great as any we face in recent decades. and we must get it right. the question is -- are we up to the challenge? my answer is of course we are. if we're clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. our nation has done this in the past. at the end of world war ii, in the last decade of the cold war, in the most recent war on terror and we can do it again. but president obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. he has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests. our clear commitment to our principles and parts of the republican party now seem to be trying to outbid the democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. this is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. the stakes are too high. and the opportunity is simply too great. no one in this administration predicted the events of the arab spring. but the freedom deficit in the arab world was no secret. for 60 years, western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the middle east. that could not last. the days of comfortable private deals with the dictators were coming to an end in the age of twitter, youtube, and facebook. and history teaches that there is no such thing as stable oppression. president obama ignored that lesson of history. instead of promoting democracy, whose fruit we see now ripening across the region, he adopted a murky policy. he called it engagement. engagement meant that, in 2009, when the iranian ayatollah still an election and the people of the country rose up in protest, president obama held his tongue. his silence validated the mullets, despite blood on their hands and nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels. while protesters were killed and tortured, secretary clinton said the administration was "waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian processes. she and the president waited long enough to see the green revolution, the green movement crushed. engagement also meant that, in his first year in office, president obama cut democracy funding for the egyptian society by 74%. as one american democracy organization noted, this was perceived as signaling a lack of support. they perceive correctly. it was a lack of support. in engagement also meant that, when crisis erupted in cairo this year as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in liberty square, secretary clinton declared "the egyptian government is stable. two weeks later, mubarak was gone. when secretary clinton visited cairo after the move barak fall, activist groups refused to meet with her. who can blame them? the forces we now need to succeed in egypt, the pro- democracy secular political party is, these are the very people president obama cut off and secretary clinton dismissed. the obama engagement policy in syria who led the administration to call the sheer allis not a reformer, even as his regime was shooting protesters dead in the street. president obama announced his plan to give them "alternative vision of himself. does anyone outside of a therapist's office have any idea what that means? this is what passes for moral clarity in the obama administration. by contrast, i called for his departure on march 29. a call for it again today. we should recall our master from damascus and i call for that again today. the leader of the united states should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where america stands. as president, i will not. we need a president who folia understands that american never leads from behind. we cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in the least tern history. we need decisive, clear right leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interest. >> the government of the middle east fallen to four broad categories and each requires a different strategic approach. the first consists of three countries in various stages of transition toward democracy. before myrlie fake republics in egypt, tunisia, and libya. iraq is also in this category. for these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy in the region. elections have produced anti- democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. we must do more than monitor polling places. we must redirect foreign aid away from efforts. we must direct those efforts toward building the allies. governed by free people according to the rule of law. we must insist that the international partners get of the sidelines and do the same. we should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions face had by libya, tunisia, and especially egypt. whereas libya is rich in oil and indonesia is small, among the regions of the emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity of the biggest danger for american interests. too many egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineer in the last decade. we act out of friendship when we tell egyptians and every new democracy that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade. not subsidies in the foreign aid. if we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth. in libya, the best of america can provide this to stop the bleeding from behind and commit to the strength of removing gadhafi. beyond libya, america should always promotion of universal principles. we should press new friends to end discrimination against women, established independent courts, and the press. and we must insist on religious freedoms for all. the second category of faith in the arab monarchies. some are engaging tell in what looks like a genuine reform. this should earn at our praise and our assistance. they must forge a partnership with their own people leading a step-by-step toward more democratic societies. the to understand these changes. and thereby deepen their own legitimacy if they choose this route. they deserve our help. others are resisting reform. president obama spoke about brain in his recent speech, he neglected to other two important words. saudi arabia. u.s. and saudi relations are at all-time low. they're going downhill long before the uprisings began. they saw the american administration yearning to engage iran at the time that they correctly saw ahead as a mortal enemy. we need to tell them what we think which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. you will develop it by demonstrating that we share the great concern about iran. and we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from iranian aggression. at the same time, we need to be frank about what they must do in their own country. above all, they need the reform and open society. their treatment of questions, other minorities, and of women is indefensible and must change. we of the reform will come to saudi arabia sooner and more smoothly if the royal family to accept and designed in. it will come later if they resist. the vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms. but not as a substitute for lasting reform. the third category consists of states that are directly hostile to america. they include iran and syria. as already vastly undermine the appeal. and the killing have significantly weakened it. the success of peaceful protests has shown the world of terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. peaceful protests may soon bring down the regime in syria. the 2009 protests inspire them to seek freedom. similarly, the protests of this year and the fault of the regime can inspire them once again. we have an interest in seeing an end to his regime and. the obama administration has not only frustrated syrians fighting for freedom, it has demonstrated a strategic blindness. the government of iran and syria are enemies of the united states. they're not reformers and never will be. to weaken or replace one who is to weaken or replace the other. the fall of the mafia and damascus would weaken the headquarters there. and it would weaken the iranian regime itself. take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic shanahan to bring the reign of terror to end. the more forceful sanctions. thus the need to work live turkey in the era of nations to further isolate the regime and we need to encourage opponents by making our own position very clear right now. when he goes, how they will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. syria is their only ally. if we deal the way, it will hasten the fall. that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. but as the opportunity offered by the brave men and women of the arab spring. the march of freedom in the middle east cut across the diversity of religious and political groups. it is born of a particular unity. it is a united front from stolen elections and stolen liberty. secret police, corruption, and the state sanctioned violence. this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and to speak with clarity. more sanctions, more and better broadcasting into iran, more assistance to access the internet and satellite tv. more efforts -- very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to the nuclear program. in 2008, barack obama said that he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and israel. this year, he said that we remain committed to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. even our closest allies are confused. for which legal authority already exists, we should enact and enforce a new pending legislation the strength in some sanctions, particularly against the revolutionary guards that control much of the economy. in the middle of all of this is israel. israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for. and what it has accomplished. and is unique in the threat of annihilation. it has long been a bastion of democracy in our region of tyranny and violence. it is by far the closest ally in that part of the world. despite nemours, a tax of various forms, israel offers all of its citizens, including 1.5 million arabs of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to vote as well as access to independent courts. and all other democratic rights. nowhere has president obama's lack of judgment and then more stunning than in his dealings with israel. it breaks my heart that the president of this country treats israel, our great friend has a problem, rather than as an ally. the president seems to genuinely believe that the palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem of the middle east. he said in cairo in 2009 and again this year. president obama could not be more wrong. the uprisings are not about israelis and palestinians. they are about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments israel built in jerusalem. today, the president doesn't really have a policy toward the peace process. he has an attitude. let's be frank about what bad attitude is. he thinks israel is the problem and he thinks the answer is always more pressure on israel. i reject that anti-israel attitude. i rejected because israel is a close and reliable democratic allies. i know the people of israel wants peace. israeli-palestinian peace is further away now that the way that barack obama came to office. it doesn't have to be permanent. we must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region receives clearly that america stands strongly with israel. i would take a new approach. why would never undermine the negotiating position or pressure to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself. second, i would not pressure israel to negotiate with a palestinian government that includes hamas. in short, they need to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step toward global legitimacy. i would insure assistance to the palestinians with the teaching of hatred and palestinian huss firms continues. that must end of. i would recommend cultivating end of power in modern forces in the palestinian society. when they have leaders that are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law and understands that the war has given them to lives of the goodness, of violence, and poverty, peace will come. released is changing before our very eyes. the government has not kept up. it abandoned of the promotion of democracy just as they were about to seize its. just as their own people rose against them. in downplayed our principles and distance us from key allies. these policies have failed. the administration has abandoned the danaher and of the price of the american leadership in the region. in a region that has looked to us for security and progress, and the wonders where we are and what we are of two. the next president must do better. today, in our own republican party, some of back and conclude our projection of strain in defense of freedom was a product of different times in different challenges. while times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not. in the 1980's, we were up against a violent totalitarian ideology been done subjugating the people in the principles of the west. while others sought to coexist, president reagan instead sought victory. so must we, today. america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. it is not wrong for republicans to question the conduct of president obama's leadership in libya. it is not wrong for republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in afghanistan. my belief is that the general's voice should carry the most weight. what is wrong as for the republican party to shrink from the challenges of american leadership in the world. history repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakest and foreign policy cost us and our children much more than we will ever say in the budget -- saved in the budget line item. america has one political party devoted to decline and withdrawal. it doesn't need a second one. our enemies respect and respond to strength. sometimes strength means military intervention. sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. that always means moral clarity in word and deed. that is the legacy of republican foreign policy at its best in our next republican president must carry the banner around the world. of equality and opportunity for all citizens, it remains a dream for people in the middle east and around the world. as america stands for these principles and stands with our friends and allies, the middle east will transform this moment of turbulence into a more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress. i look forward to your questions and the discussion. [applause] >> have declined, retrenchment, and with a role. really? >> here are some examples the support that characterization. at a minimum, the commander in chief needs to lend more clarity and rhetorical strength to the values and principles that we support and embrace here and around the world. at the beginning of the green revolution when people were standing, asking where the united states stands and the president stands essentially new on those issues, that is a form of withdrawal, retrenchment. when you

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Israel ,Turkey ,Kosovo ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Syria ,New Mexico ,United States ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Liberty Square ,Massachusetts ,Morocco ,Iowa ,El Salvador ,Libya ,Panama ,Grenada ,New York ,Germany ,Damascus ,Dimashq ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Boston ,Tripoli ,Tarabulus ,Indonesia ,Lebanon ,Pakistan ,United Kingdom ,Beirut ,Beyrouth ,Tunisia ,Cairo ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Saudi Arabia ,Pennsylvania ,Utica ,00 ,Somalia ,Yemen ,France ,Americans ,America ,Egyptians ,Saudi ,Syrians ,Scotland ,Egyptian ,Iranian ,Israelis ,German ,Libyan ,Israeli ,American ,Joe Lieberman ,Louis Fisher ,Harold Coe ,Karen Temple ,Harold Koh ,Ann Coulter ,Tom Coburn ,Palestinian Huss ,Regina Benjamin ,Betty Duke ,Barack Obama ,Al Qaeda ,Tim Pawlenty ,Howard Koh ,James Madison ,Peter Hoekstra ,Byron Dorgan ,