tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 28, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
craig, in illinois. caller: i had a question about the stimulus package. some of these states that have used -- misused the money, what is your stand on that? guest: we have $40 billion at the department of transportation. most of that money has been obligated. i do not know of any state or municipality that used one penny of that money to balance their budget. that would be illegal. that is not what the money was to be used for. when you look at where we have spent our money, it has put thousands of people to work. almost all of that money now has been spent in projects that will be concluded this year.
the money that we gave to towns and states could not be used to balance the budget. host: rick, from jackson, tennessee. caller: we have quite a few projects going on in tennessee, and when you drive by, there has to be a lot of illegals working. host: before we get a response, i do not know that we can judge that someone is illegal. i believe you are making an assumption, based on them being latino. latino. guest: 1 i will address is how the money is being spent.
we allocated money to our partners, in some cases, roads and bridges for the states. in transit district's, the money was distributed to run the country. in some instances, municipalities for special projects. once they have the money, they have to spend it in a way that they say they would. we monitor that. they enter into contracts with people who build roads and bridges. we monitor that to make sure it is spent correctly. host: there are certainly legal immigrants working on projects, too. a comment on twitter.te
essentially, integrating this technology in your car. what do you think? what do you think? guest: we are doing a study to look at the conative distractions of all of the things i did mention before, like gps. we value the idea that david and good studies give us the credibility to make the judgments that we make. when those studies are complete, i have no doubt, we will be announcing that. will be announcing that. host: andrew, republican in texas. good morning. caller: i have a comment about the chevy volt. how much does the badr cost? my understanding is it is $16,000 for a battery alone. and then the car costs $41,000,
and the government needs to bribe you to buy it. a year and a half ago, you made a comment that, under your a comment that, under your leadership, the transportation department would no longer favor motorized transportation projects. guest: define what motorized transportation projects are. caller: well, you did not define it in your talk, so explain it to me. guest: they have put bicycle lanes in washington, d.c., but other communities have, too. the chevy volt has proved to be
wildly popular, if you talk to people from gm. they only have four places in the country where they are selling it. now they are opening up distribution and sales rooms around the country because people like the car. it is an easy car to drive, it gets good gas mileage, it is part battery-part combustion. it does cost $42,000. nobody is disputing that. nobody is disputing that. there is a $7500 tax rebate when you buy the volt. i give gm credit, nissan credit, ford. i give all of these companies credit for trying to build automobiles that helps people with high gasoline prices and gives people an alternative. if you do not want to drive a
battery-powered car, so be it. my hybrid is a great vehicle. we like it very much. i encourage people to take a look at them. if you do not like it, by something else. certainly, people are going to buy these vehicles because they are tired of high gasoline prices. host: scott, in birmingham, alabama. caller: the reason i was for helping chrysler and gm -- and correct me if i am wrong. correct me if i am wrong. during world war ii, they came and helped us build stop on credit. is that not right? guest: these car current -- companies have been the backbone of our country for many years. we have a long, rich history of
building cars in america that have provided good paying jobs to americans. these are american made vehicle and the spin-off of the jobs created by this is enormous. it has been a boon to us to have this industry. i will say it again. thanks to the president's leadership in saying we cannot let gm and chrysler go under because they have been the backbone of our economy. he stepped up under great criticism and he has been vindicated. people are working and these small businesses are in operation. the small business community is the backbone of our economy also. also. host: ken writes on twitter --
a university of massachusetts study shows bike lanes creates more jobs than regular transportation. guest: we encourage safe cycling. one way to do it is to create these bike lanes. mayors and city council members are hearing from their constituents, and they want safe places to ride bikes. that is why by claims are being put in all over the country. when you see someone on a bike, please treat them with the same kind of courtesy that you would anyone else, like a pedestrian. many of them are cycling to work, some for the fun of it. this is what the american people really want. elected officials and communities are responding to
that. host: transportation secretary ray lahood, thank you. traveling to >> coming up in about an hour and a half, the senate foreign relations committee will gavel back in to consider a draft resolution from senator kerrey and senator mccain that would authorize a limited u.s. military role in the nato operation in libya. we will have live coverage of the markup session at 2:30 p.m. eastern. thursday marks defense secretary robert gates final day on the job. we will bring you a live tribute to the outgoing secretary, who served both president obama and president george w. bush terror
he will be replaced by leon panetta. -- bullish. he will be replaced by leon panetta. the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to the u.s. military involvement in libya. look for continued debate at c- span, the congressional chronicle, where you will find a video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, committee hearings, and information on your elected officials. we mentioned the senate foreign relations committee coming back to markup the libya resolution -- expect the number of amendments to be discussed this afternoon. until then, we will show you part of this morning's session, and some of the opening statements from senator john kerry, and the ranking republican, richard lugar.
>> we are here to examine an issue that we have been debating since it was passed. this has been debated since the 1970's. certainly, it has been debated over the course of the last weeks with respect to the war powers resolution, and its role in america's use of force in of libya. i want to thank all of my colleagues for the very constructive manner in which we have conducted the discussion over these past weeks. this afternoon, the committee will meet again, and i might ask all the members that are here, as you run into other members, if we could begin that meeting punctually. if there is a fair amount of important business we want to consider as expeditiously as possible, and 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 compelled us to join other nations in establishing a no-fly zone over libya. by keeping gaddafi. the most potent weapons out of the fight, i am -- gaddafi, the most potent weapons out of the fight, i am convinced, and as was affirmed, the conviction that the actions with respect to the no-fly zone indeed saved many 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. is a matter of our values. that is 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 have made clear that the 60- day restriction made clear in the war powers resolution does not apply since we handed operations over to nato, but some people obviously can and will draw different conclusions. we will have a discussion about that today. it is important in my choice and to remember that the war powers solutions was a reaction to a particular war, a particular set of events, the vietnam war, which at that time was the longest conflict in our history, and resulted in no declaration of war, and the loss of 60,000
american lives. during those three administrations, congress never declared war. they funded, but there was no formal authorization. understandably, congress wanted to ensure in the future it would have an opportunity to assert constitutional prerogatives, which i do agree with, and do believe in one of america's sense soldiers abroad. our involvement in libya is obviously 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 "hostility or situations, where imminent hostility, or involvement in hostile situations is clearly indicated by the circumstances referring to 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, particularly for my friends, if that does not make it right, and i am not suggesting that it does. it's still begs the analysis each time of whether or not it fits a particular situation -- panama, and grenada, haiti, possible, loudoun non-, the list is long, -- lebron none, the list is long. he and some cases, those actions added in less than 60 days, but the number of them they went well beyond the 60 days. in fact, in one occasion, in lebanon, congress authorized action one year later, i
believe. we have never commented -- amended the war powers resolution, and we have never amended the resolution in terms of this particular authorization that came through the united nations. the ford administration, for example, defined hostilities as only those situations where u.s. troops were exchanging fire with hostile forces. subsequent administrations, republican and democrat alike, built on that interpretation. in libya today, know america average american is being shot at, no american troops -- no american is being shot at, no american troops are on the ground, and we're not want to put them there. the war powers resolution was not drafted with drones in mind. as military technology becomes
more and more advanced, it may well be that the language i just read needs further clarification. maybe it is up to us to redefine it in the context of this more modern and changed warfare and threat. i certainly recognize there could be reasonable differences of opinion on this point as it applies to libya today. so, i'm glad we're having this hearing. i think it is important. many of us have met with members of libyan opposition, and then those senators are eager to get to know them better and learn about their goals. we are joined here by libya's ambassador to the united states, but he resigned during the uprising, and is now the diplomatic representative of the transitional national council, which only germany moved to recognize recently. like the ambassador, we would
all like to see a brighter future for libya's. that is why when it comes to america's involvement, we need to look beyond the definition of hostilities to the bigger picture -- have a senate resolution authorizing the use of force in libya will show the world, particularly muammar gaddafi, at a time when most people make a judgment that the noose is tightening, the opposition is advancing, the regime is under enormous pressure -- that congress and the president are committed to this critical endeavor. the united states is always strongest when we speak with one, strong voice on foreign policy, and that is why i hope this afternoon we can find our way to an agreement are bipartisan resolution. endorsing our supporting role in this conflict sends a message to allies in nato.
secretary gates, prior to departing, in recent days, they strong speech about nato, the need for nato to do more. the fact is nato is doing more in this effort. they are in the lead on this effort. we have asked in the past for the alliance to take the lead in many conflicts. if too often, they have declined. in this case, they have stepped up. i believe that to turn on our own words, hopes, and messages of last year, and pull the rug out from under them would have far-reaching consequences. was that said, it is a great pleasure to welcome -- was that here, it is a great pleasure to welcome the state department's legal advisor. he is a distinguished scholar of constitutional law and international law. he has a long career in the government as well as in
academia. we have also invited witnesses from the department of justice, but they declined to appear. on the second panel, we have two weeks -- witnesses. louis fisher, a scholar and a resident of the constitution project, who was a specialist in constitutional law, and the professor of law at temple university, who served in the state department and the national security department staff, and has written extensively on foreign relations lot of the united states. we appreciate all of our witnesses taking time to be here today. senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman for calling this meeting to consider the legal and constitutional basis for ongoing united states military operations in libya. the president declined to seek
congressional authorization before initiate hostilities. substantively, -- subsequently, he is. them out without seeking or receiving congressional observations. this is at odds with the constitution, and the president's own pronouncements on war powers during his presidential candidacy. for example, in december of 2007, he responded to a local boston globe" question by saying "the power does not have problem -- power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a attack in a situation that is not an imminent threat to the nation cartel before our -- nation's." before our discussion turns to constitutional issues, it is more important to make a fundamental point. even if someone believes the press and had the authority to initiate and continue united states operations in libya, that
does not mean that it is wise nor 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 when circumstances allow. there was a near uniformity of opinion after chances -- and chances are enhanced by the unity, clarity of mission, and ton storage constitutional certainty that such a debate -- and constitutional certainty that such a debate provides. few excuses have been offered, ranging from an impending congressional recess, to the authority provided by a un security council resolution. these excuses to not justify the lack of consultation of
discipline. 12 days before the united states launched hostilities, i called for the president to seek a declaration of war before taking military action. a key event 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 presented one. this debate would not have been easy, but presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engage in the representatives is inconvenient or uncertain. if the outcome was in doubt, it is all more reason why our president should seek to the debate. if he does not, he's taking the extraordinary position that his plans for war are too important to be upset by a disapproving vote in congress.
james madison, in a 1797 letter to thomas jefferson stated "the constitution supposes and history of all governments demonstrate that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. it is accordingly, what studied care vested to the question of war, in the legislature." clearly, there are circumstances in which a president might be offered as a -- justified, but as senator west has pointed out systematically, none of the reasons apply to libyan peace. 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 do the operations require surprise, which would have made a public debate and practical -- impractical. in this case, president obama made a deliberate decision to not seek congressional authorization of his actions. this was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed experience above constitutional responsibility. some will say that president obama is not the first president to employ american forces overseas and controversial circumstances without a congressional authorization. saying that presidents have exceeded their constitutional authority before is of little comfort. the highly dubious arguments
offered by the obama administration break new ground in justify unilateral presidential decision to use force to guard the approval of even more war-making authority in the hands of the executive is not in our country's best interest, especially at a time when our nation is deeply in debt, and our military is deeply committed overseas. at the outset of this conflict, the president assured that u.s. military operations would be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." on this basis, the administration asserted that the action did not require a declaration of war. three months later, these assurances rang hollow american military positions expanded to an all but declared campaign to drive gaddafi from power. the administration is not able to specify any applicable limits. the scope has drawn from effort
to protect civilians under imminent threat, to obliterating libya, the military arsenal, command and control structure, and leadership apparatus. most recently, the administration sought to avoid its obligations by making incredible a circe -- assertion that u.s. occupation in liberty does not constitute hostility. the administration's own description of the operation in libya _ is the fallacy of this position. u.s. warplanes have reportedly struck libya's air defenses reportedly 60 times since natal assume the lead role. most significantly, the broader range of airstrikes been. out by other forces depend --
been brought out by other forces depend on security defenses by the united states pad the war powers resolution require the president to terminate the forces on may 20, 60 days after he notified congress of the commencement of the operation. the administration declined to offer any explanation of its view that u.s. forces were not engaged in hostilities to video until nearly a month later, on june 15. even at that point, the explanation was limited to four sentences. administration analysis focuses on the question of whether u.s. casualties are likely to happen, thereby minimizing other considerations relative to the use of force. is this definition of hostility were accepted, presence with s pacific scopes to provide --
specific scopes to provide warfare. it would deny congress and put on the words impact -- or's impact. the administration pulled a report also implies that the -- because allied nations are flying most of the missions, united states operations are not significant enough to require congressional authorization. this under plays the neutrality care we are contributing the -- 70% of the coalition's intelligence capabilities, and the majority of its refueling ss. the fact that we are leaving most of the shootings to other countries does not mean the united states is not involved in acts of war. if the united states in counters persons performing similar activities in support of al-
qaida, or taliban operations, we certainly would deem them to be participating in hostilities against us. moreover, the language of the war powers resolution clearly encompasses the kinds of operations u.s. military forces are supporting in support of other nato countries. these are compounded by indications that the administration compelled legal position was the result of the disputed legal process. the president made the decision without the department of justice having the opportunity to develop a unified legal opinion. it is regrettable that the administration has refused our make representatives of the department of defense to be available. we expect the the administration to be fully forthcoming to compensate for lack of
congressional authorization. although consultation is not a substitute for formal authorization, if you cooperated in this legal scholarship today, the survey vital purpose in in a fine the government and providing congress with the basis for decision making on the war. for the most part, for example, the clinton administration and president clinton himself consulted meaningfully during the nevis its intervention in the balkans. in sharp contrast, the you -- president obama defects have been perfunctory, and incomplete. this committee alone has experience of these three occasions when briefings were canceled, or relevant witnesses were denied without explanation. basic questions have gone not answered. the deputy of state designed not
to answer certain questions. they can only be answered by the military, yet the administration has refused to provide the committee. this inexplicable behavior contributes to the damage bolivian president might create in the future. -- the libyan precedent might create in the future. the big leap that american pilots are flying a minority of the missions and the coalition just to provide the contention with no obligation hostilities, especially since in united states for dissipation enables most of the operations under way. the president does not have the authority separate his judgment from constitutional process when there is no vital emergency care the world is forel -- full of and that -- of examples of local and regional violence to which
the united states military could be applied for some help twisted 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 chairman for the opportunity to make this statement. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] x the stage is set, to below differing views reflecting over 50 years on this committee. we're still not sure what the answer is, so your test this morning is an interesting one. i think we will not only have a good dialogue, but maybe it might be fun. have at it. you are on. >> thank you, mr. chairman,
senator lugar, members of the committee for this important hearing. he is good to be back before you. like past legal advisers i am honored to explain the administration's legal position on the war powers. i've submitted detailed evidence, which includes the brutality inflicted by gaddafi and the people of libya and the actions that the united states has taken to stop it, supporting the operations that are limited with respect to the design, and risk of axle and the escalation third let me make three points. this administration is acting lawfully, consistent with both the letter and. to of the constitution and the war powers resolution. contrary to what some have chain -- claim, we are not asserting sweeping constitutional power to bypass the congress. the president has never claim
the authority to take the nation to war without congressional authorization. he is not claimed the right to violate international law, to use force abroad when in doing so would not serve important national interests, or to refuse to consult with congress on important issues. we recognize that congress has powers to regulate answer may uses of force, and the war powers resolution plays an important role in promoting intervention dialogue. indeed, my testimony today continues that dialogue, which includes more than 10 hearings, 30 briefings, and dozens of experiences with congress on these issues. from start, we have sought to obey the law. the president reported to congress consistent to the war powers resolution within 48 hours of commencing operations in libya. he framed our military mission narrowly, saying no ground
troops to be deployed, and that u.s. forces would transition responsibility to nato command, shifting to a constrained and supporting role -- role. from the outset, we noted that the situation in libya does not constitute a war requiring consistent -- specific approval. as my testimony notes on page 13, the president has constitutional authority to direct the use of force to serve and poured in national interest, preserving regional stability, and the credibility and effectiveness of the u.n. security council. the nature's -- the nature and the scope of the operations e supported here did not rise to the level of war for constitutional purposes. so, my second point -- we do not believe that the war powers resolution 60-day pullouts solution applies to the libyan mission. as senator kerry quoted, the
resolution directed the president to remove our forces within 60 days from the date the hostilities or situations were eminent. if everyone recognizes this, the legal trigger for the automatic pullout clock, hostilities is an ambiguous term of art that is defined nowhere in the statute. the legislative history makes clear there was no agreed upon in view of exactly what the term hostilities would encompass, nor has that been defined by any court or congress themselves. from the start, legislature's disagree about the meaning of determine the scope of the 60- day cloud wrote. and whether a particular set of facts has been determined less by a narrow parsing of dictionary definitions than a practice. the members who drafted the
system understood this is not like the internal revenue code. should not be a mechanical exercise. the term hostilities was vague, but david -- gave it more important meeting -- meaning by making the resolution a one- size-fits-all straitjacket. as my testimony recounts, and has -- as senator kerry has noted, there are various leaders that have indicated they do not believe that u.s. military operations in libya amount to the 60-day provision. we believe that view is correct and confirmed by historical practice. the historical practice, which i summarize in my testimony, suggests but when u.s. forces engage in a limited military mission that read involves limited exposure for u.s. troops, and limited risk of serious execution, an employe
minimum means, we are not in the hostage is envisioned by the war powers resolution that was entitled -- intended to trigger an automatic 60-day pullout. but mr. something about each of these. -- but first let me say something about each of these. the nature of the initiative is limited. the u.s. is playing a role in nato-led mission. this circumstance is virtually unique, not found in any of the recent historic situations in which a hostility questions have been debated, from the iran hostage crisis, too well salvador, to grenada, to the fighting of irani in the persian gulf, and the use of ground troops in somalia. secondly, the use of force has been limited. there has been no casualty or threat of casualty, no exchange
of hostile fire, no sustained confrontation of any kind with hostile forces. as my testimony describes the past -- page 9, past administrations have not found the 60-day rule to apply such as in lebanon in 1983, and some of the 1993. third, the risk of escalation here is limited. in contrast to the u.n.- authorized desert storm operation which presented over 400,000 troops the same order of magnitude at its peak, libya has not involve any chance of escalation into a full-fledged conflict, characterized by a u.s. grant -- ground presence. in this respect, libya contrasts with other recent cases -- lebanon, central america,
somalia, the persian gulf tanker controversy, discussed and page 10 of my testimony -- where passive ministrations declined to find hostilities under forces. fourth and finally, senators, we are using limited military means, not the kind of full military engagement with which the war powers resolution is primarily concerned there, i use the " from my predecessor in response to a request from the congress about an incident in the ford administration -- "the violence u.s. forces are inflicting has been modest in terms of its frequency, intensity, and severity. the air-to-ground missions are a far cry from the extensive aerial strike operations led by armed forces in kosovo in 1999,
where the nato operations in balkans, to which the u.s. committed the vast majority of air strikes. to be specific, the bulk of u.s. contributions has been providing intelligence capabilities and refueling efforts to the nato effort. a significant portion of the sorties are being flown by coalition partners. the overwhelming amount of funds -- flights have been deployed. limited strikes by predator, unmanned aerial vehicles against unmanned discrete targets. by our best estimates, senators, since the handoff to nato, the total number of u.s. minished -- munitions dropped in libya has been less than 1% of those drops
in coastal. now, we acknowledge the have any of these fellas been active in libya, were present in different degrees, you could draw a different legal conclusion, but it was an unusual confluence of these four limitations, an operation that is limited in exposure, risk of elevation, and military means, that led the president to conclude that the libyan operation did not fall under the automatic 60-day palau rule. as senator kerry suggested, we are 5 -- far from the court case that most members had in mind. they were concerned about no more in vietnam. given the limited military means, of risk of escalation, and exchanges of fire, we do not believe that the 1973 congress intended that this resolution should be construed so rigidly
to stop the president from international approval of the expressed request of nato, and libya's own transitional national council for the narrow of -- but urgent purpose of preventing the slaughter of innocent civilians in libya. third and finally, senators, we fully recognize reasonable minds might read the resolution differently. that is not a surprise 10 scholars have spent their entire careers debating these issuance -- scholars have spent their entire careers debating these issues. we acknowledge there are steps we should have taken, or connected to foster better communication on these very difficult questions. none of us believe the best way forward now is for khaddafi to prevail, and resume his attack such as some people.
were the united states dropped out of this mission, or starkly curtail contributions, it would not only compromise international relationships and destabilize the region, but it would under nato's process welcome al-qaida back. however we construe the war powers resolution, we can all agree would only serve gaddafi's interests for the u.s. to withdraw from this operation before it is finished. the urgent question before you is not one of law, but of policy. congress provided support for nato's mission in egypt, insuring that gaddafi does not regain the upper hand. so, in closing, i esthetes a quick and decisive action to approve resolution 20 to
provide congressional authorization for continued operations in libya to enforce the purposes of security council resolution, 1973. only by so doing can this body of firm that the united states government is united in its support of the nato alliance and the aspirations of the libyan people. thank you, senator. i look forward to answering your questions appeared >> that was the state department's harold call from an earlier today. the committee is coming back at two o'clock 30 p.m. to mark up the resolution, which will likely authorize and probably limit the role in the middle operation to drive muammar gaddafi out of power. they will reserve my and -- resumed at 2:30 eastern. we will have coverage. surely after his statement, he was spoken to about the war powers said, and the timing of
the presence notification to congress. we will show you some of that, including an interaction with senator kerry and senator coburn. apply -- you have to redo the analysis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have heard many cases where you have tried to justify the ends or the means for the end -- and eddie have talked about libya and muammar gaddafi in your handling of this. those are two very, very separate issues. people have very differing opinions about what is happening in libya but still have strong concerns about the way the administration has handled the process itself. i do not think it is helpful to meld the two together and i think of waters down the issue at hand. i find a humorous, sitting here on the foreign relations committee, the most deliberative
body in the world, some say. basically you guys 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 there's no reason for us to get any better resolution from congress, and yet the senate today in this 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 want to ask this one question -- now you have taken this argument and seen the response you got from both sides of the aisle, are you still glad that you have travelled this route as it relates to the argument you have made about the war powers act? >> senator, i believe this
argument. i think it is correct. i would not be here if i did not believe it. >> i did not ask that. are you glad that you created an issue where no issue had to exist by taking this narrowly defined route and sticking a stick in the eye of congress? is that something you are glad you have done? >> senator, that was not our intent. you felt they stick with stock, that's not our goal. you have said a number of things i thought i should include in my answer. one, the war powers resolution is not a mechanical device. it has to be construed in light of the facts of the time. otherwise, the 1973 congress would be making decisions instead of the congress of 2011. it has to take account of the circumstance. with regard to witnesses, i'm the legal adviser of the state department. the footnote in one of my
testimony reviews, times the legal of visor's have appeared before this committee and others -- this is my committee of jurisdiction. you voted my confirmation. so i am here for the conversation. it was our position from the beginning that we were acting consistently with the zero or powers resolution, but we would welcome support because as senator lugar said, it would be -- a president always value a bipartisan support for this kind of effort or mission. finally, you asked whether we have made errors. i think this controversy has probably not played out exactly as some would have expected. i'm sure there are many places where someone have urged, and i would have been among them,
coming up with -- 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 the end of the day, the last thing we're saying, the thing we're not saying, is that the senate is irrelevant. >> we are making ourselves irrelevant. let me do this. this is a long answer. i want to give the respect of answering. i would like to have a couple of extra minutes -- if you want to say anymore regarding my opening comments -- >> however the legal question is addressed, there is a fundamental question of what to do about the civilians in libya. that is a decision on when it should the senate can make a decision this afternoon.
>> i do not think making decisions are any different from what came out. we are rushing to make ourselves irrelevant by passing something al that basically says -- you know what it says. the chairman mention that since no american is being shot, there are no hostilities. by that reasoning, we could drop a nuclear bomb on tripoli and we would not be involved in hostilities. that goes to a preposterous argument being made. one of the issues of precedents you are setting is that predators now, the president of the united states, and 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. yet basically, what you're doing by arguing this narrow case, as saying any president of the nine states can order predators strikes in any country and
that's not hostilities. we know what predators do. i think you know what they do. lots of times human beings are not alive after they finished their work. arguing're doing is that president can order predator strikes in any place in the world by virtue of this narrow argument yet taken. that is not hostilities and connors plays no role. >> that is not what i am arguing. the obviously, s credit -- of a predator strikes were at a particular level or floor carpet bombing using predators, that would create a dramatically different situation. but the scenario i have described to senator casey is a very different. 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 muammar gaddafi being used to kill his own civilians. even the numbers senator casey mentioned are not close to the kind of level we would consider to be ones that would trigger the pullout provision. the important thing and the thing that has been asked is are we presenting a limited position? yes. because all four limitations are what bring it within a line of the statute. we do not say any element of could be expanded out of shape and require reexamination of the war powers resolution. i gave the example of the un security council designation,
desert storm, that required approval because of the scale of the operation. >> i think the president has established a precedent by taking this argument that any president can use predators in any country they wish because that is limited hostilities without congress being involved. i'm probably going to come to a close quicker than i won because of the time. we do have limited time flying over ltd. -- over libyan airspace, do not? >> yes. >> we do know there are numbers of types of weapons that they have that could take down our aircraft that are not necessarily lead fixed positions, correct? >> that is correct. >> to say our men and women in uniform are not in a position to encounter hostilities is
pretty incredible. you cite that hostilities has never been defined. i read the house conference which basically reported out the war powers act. they tried to make it a lesser level. they started out with armed conflict. they started out with hostilities and did so in such a matter to talk about the kinds of positions that exist on the ground. when you say these are not hostilities, that is patently not the intent of congress when they pass the war powers act. you introduce a mathematical formula. i'm sure future presidents will use a mathematical formula if we are only doing x% of the bombing than we are not involved in hostilities. but i find that not in any way
to jive with what the house sent out in its reporting language. i know my time is up and the chairman is getting impatient. i did not support your nomination. i thought you are right there -- a very intelligent person, very well learned. but i felt 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 you that privately when we met in our office. that is exactly what you have done. you have basically said the united nations has authorized this and there is no need for congress to act. we're going to narrowly defined hostilities. i would guess at night, however
people of your categories get high-five's, you're talking to other academics about this cute argument that has been utilized. i think you have undermined the incredible -- the integrity of this the destruction and the integrity of the war powers act. by taking this very narrow approach, you did great disservice to our country. i do hope as 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 defeat arguments does not have the ability to work from congress. >> i was not growing impatient. i think it is time -- is important to give you time to these conversations. i value our relationship lot.
i do have to tell you based on what you just said that your facts are incorrect. your basic facts on which you are basing your judgment is incorrect. let me tell you why. 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 did not argue that. >> you come to the next point. having done that, the president sent us a letter before the expiration of the time. in the letter, and i'm going to put that in the record, he says the dear mr. speaker, and the president pro tem and the senate, march 21st, reported to congress that the united states, pursuant to requests from the arab league and authorization by the united nations security
council to prevent a humanitarian crisis in libya. i could read the whole thing, but he says, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, i wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by senators kerry, mccain, feinstein, levin and lieberman, which confirms the congress supports the mission in libya and both branches are united in their support of the libyan people. he asked us to do that before the expiration of the 60 days. but we did not do it. do not blame the president. the congress of the united states did not do it. let me tell you why, bluntly. both leaders in both houses were unwilling to do it. let's be honest about this. >> i am being honest about this. i have the ability to express my opinion just like you did. and to use the facts just like you do.
i do not want to get into a debate about this right now. >> you are not letting me finish my point. you are saying the president violated the process and did not come to the congress. he did come to the congress. he sent us a letter due to authorization and we did not do it. that is the simple fact here. moreover, there is a constitutional question here because in paragraph b of the war powers act, it says the president shall terminate any -- will submit it unless the congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization within the 60-day time frame. if congress does not act, congress can in effect by its lack of action challenge the constitutional right to do something. that is a constitutional standoff.
any senator could have gone to the floor of the senate with a resolution during those 60 days. no senator chose to do so. all i am saying is i'm not going to sit here and let everybody throw a dart at the white house saying the president violated this or that. secondly, sent us a letter before the expiration of the time asking us to pass the authorization. third, i will say this as a chairman, nobody wanted to do it. so, here we are. the relevant question is -- i agree. there are some serious constitutional questions about predators, how did they fit, and i think the legal adviser has 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 introduced 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 in fact, congress, 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 involved in hostilities, we don'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 >>, by the way, senator corker has drafted an amendment to the resolution that would increase the frequency with which the white house would have to issue reports to congress. that amendment and a number of mothers with that consideration this afternoon as the senate foreign relations committee --
number of others will get consideration this afternoon as the senate foreign relations committee gavels in. the u.s. house on friday debated two measures on u.s. military action in libya i want to let you know that the hearing resumes at 2:30. on friday, though, but the measures in the house were rejected, the resolution that would have authorized the libya of the race and -- libya abortion but limited ground forces, as with the -- libya operation but limited ground forces. we will show you some of the floor debate from friday, starting off with congressman rooney guest. nt us into kinetic military activity or war in libya. within 48 hours the president notified the congress in accordance with the war powers
act of his decision to do so. for 60 days the president under the war powers act had the opportunity and chose not to come to this body and make the case as to why being in liby was important. on the 60th day he wrote a letter to this body saying that he would welcome authorization but he's not asking for it. time and time again on the armed services committee we were presented with speakers from the administration who would give certain updates on various matters to which i would ask you, are you here to -- i would ask, are you here to ask ausization and the witnesses would say no. -- authorization and the witnesses would say no. after 90 days and t president has not seized activity or hostilities in little bit -- ceased activity or hostilities in libya, the time has come and gone and we've sent our indication over to the administration time and time again that we disapprove. but because the war powers
resolution by some either in the republican or in the democrat or in the house or the senate is questionable whether or not they consider it constitutional or not, the president has operated in what we now know is called the zone of twilight as whether or not he even needs our approval. so what are we lt with? mr. speaker, we're left with today our option under our ability under the power of the purse to restrict funds from ongoing operations in libya. without it and without the supreme courweighing in on whether or not the war powers is unconstitutional, in my opinion the president is breaking the law but he is being restricted by nobody and being able to continue unfettered. some have said that the war powers resolution isn't worth the paper that it's written on. to that i say, based on what supreme court decision? based on what precedent?
there is none because the courts haven't weighed in on it. i know some of my colleagues here have a pending case before the court and i wish them well. but what ifthey don't accept the case? what if they say these members, as they have said before, don't have standing? then we're rht back to square one. mr. speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to the executive branch and this transcends party, but it exerts our power under the paration of powers to say we, the house of representatives, are relevant, we the house of representatives are exercising our ability that the founding fathers gave us in the ability to declare war, because they wanted us to have this deliberation, this debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on both sideshat have been very good. because the last thing that we want as americans is for some president, whether it's this president or some future president, to be able to pick fights around the world without
any debate from another branch governmen it's the most difficult thing we have to do as government officials and that's send our kids into harm's way. so it has to be a long debate and the president had 60 days and chose not to engage in that debate. so here we are today saying, if you chouse not to come here and get altogether -- choose not to come here and get authorization, we are going to stop iuntil you do. the president always has the ability in the future to come and try to get authorization for what he's doing in libya or anywhere else. so, mr. speaker, i rise in support of my bill to withdraw fundg from future engagement in libya and i reserve the balance of my time. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.
mr. smith: thank you. the bottom line with this resolution, and i think the gentleman made a lot of very fair points, i certainly think that the white house could have handled it better in terms of communicating wi congress, but what this resolution would do that he has presented would be to end our mission in libya. so all of the debates and arguments that you heard from the previous discussion apply to this just as well. it has some limited options in terms of what the president could continue to do in support of nato, but it very specifically disallows any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. it does allow for aerial refueling, it allows for rescu missions, but what the military has made clear is they will not do that without all of the other assets that are necessary to suppress enemy fire, enemy fire. we are not going to send off our aerial refueling apparatus if we know we can't protect them from
being shot dn. so the effect of this resolution is to again end the mission in libya and people have different opinions about where they should come down on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya -- on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya. i do believe that congress' voice should be heard on this issue. that's why i supported the previous resolution that would have authorized that. i don't think we should stop what we're doing in libya and getting back to the previous debate, there have been some comments that have been made that i want to be sure and correct. i think we have a much better idea of who the forces in libya fighting against muammar gaddafi are than has been said and we know this because they control roughly half the country right now. what our mission was able to do is stop muammar gaddafi from being able to crush the folks who are rising up against him and retake the territory that they have. so in benghazi and in most of i think it's eastern libya, it is controlled by these opposition forces. and by all accounts they are
ruing a very sensible government. it is not an islamic state, it does not have al qaeda inuence, it has a bunch of people who are simply trying to exercise free expression that they have been denied for nearly 40 years by muammar gaddafi. we have a very good idea who these people are. they are precisely the type of people that the united states of america should be supporting. and as i mentioned before, in our great struggle against al qaeda, one of the centerpces of it is ideological. the ideology that bin laden and many others advance is very antiwestern and eir biggest government is that the west ha consistently supported governments that have repressed the muslim people. that we have not been good for them. and there are at least one or two instances when that argunt actually has some facts to back it up. and now we are presented with a chance to support a legitimate group of people who want basically what we have, democracy. they want the ability to vote
for their representatives, they want a voice in their government and we are going to pull the rug out from under them. and keep in mind, th is a very limited mission. it is nato-led, but we are offering critical support to make it possible. and if we vote for the rooney resolution, we will pull all of that away and right at the moment, in fact there was a newspaper story this morning about how gaddafi is talking about leaving tripoli because the pressure is getting too great on him, we have had continual members of the libyan government abandoning gaddafi, he is ready to fall and those voices of libyan people who want the very freedoms that we all say we want for them are ready to rise and we are going to reverse that by pulling out this minimal level of support that we are offering. that is the effect of the rooney resolution and therefore i oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend from texas, mr. mccaul.
the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding time and commend him for this legislation. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of thibill and in defense of the constitution. the founding fathers clearly intended for congress to have the power to commit this nation into armed conflict. article 1, section 8 of the constitution states that congress shall have the power to declare war. our first commander in chief, george washington, knew that when he said the constitution vets the power of declaring war in congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. that is exactly what this bill is about. and president obama, when he was a senator, knew this when he said that the president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
he went on further to say that no law can give congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as a co-equal branch the constitution made it. i couldn't agree more with him. but unfortunately as president mr. obama appears to no longer agree with his prior interpretaon of the constitution. and in reviewing the war powers act, we can argue that it is unconstitutional. but that is for the supreme court to decide. in applying the war powers act to the facts here in this case it is clear that the president failed to comply with the requirements to get congressional approval. and when we examine the merits of the case for involvement in libya, this administration has wholly failed to define a clear national interest, mission or goal. why are we there? are we there to kill gaddafi? or to provide humanitarian aid? and since when does humanitarian aid come from a missile launch from a predator drone?
and who are these rebels that we are supporting? the administration has failed to provide congress with a clear answer to this question. . we do know some e tied to terrorist organizations. the bill introduced by my good iend from florida, mr. rooney, reasserts congress' role as a co-equal branch of government and sends a clear message to the president that he must get congressional approval before he commits thisnation to war. as he stated when he was in the unit states senate. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank mr. smith and let me thank him for his leadership and for
characterizing where we are today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture. i'm looking at the vote count and it looks as if 225 republicans voted against a time certain to get out of libya. if you read the resolution, h.r. 2278, and i'm looking over and over again, there really is no print as to a time certain. there is a nebulous statement about limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence surveillancend reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational planning. that can go on ad infinitum. we can take the american people's money forever and ever
and continue in this effort. i don't like where we are today. actually it is true, it is congress' right to declare war and the war powers resolution which my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on this constitutionality, and of course they used it in the past, does indicate that it was done in order to track the constitution and allow congressional consultation. there was a letter sent by the president. there has been a report sent, but there's no doubt that this was not handled right. but in the iraq war, an unnecessary war, no arab league states asked us to join with them. there was no defined threat to the united states in the iraq waas we said. we left the afghanistan war to dilly-dally in iraq and lose 4,0 soldiers. so where is the lack of hypocrisy here? right now the arab league has asked us to join them. right now our nato allies are engaged in trying to get rid of
an oppressive abuser and a person who has killed his own people. where is the dignity on this place? it's nothing but politics. and i respect my colleagues who want to make choices about wich direction they want to go. but i will tell you i'd much rather have to be able to vote for something that is time certain, ending in one year ad before, and if there is not a definitive end, then i will offer a briffed resolution to get out of libya, but i don't want to abandon my friends in the arab states who are now struggling for democracy. why is syria different? why is yemen dierent? why is bahrain different? you are absolutely right because other forces are engaged in syria, yemen, and bahrain. and the arab states are attempting to negotiate. so i'm not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds of wars. i'm not interested in going
there but i am interested in being consistent. we now have an operation and we can tell that there is movement by those who are rebels and i'd like my friends to document for me if they have got a documented presence of al qaeda, then they can tell us that. but right now we have an obligation and we can't play politics. and this resolution is nothing but politics because it does not end when we are supposed to get out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. smith: additional 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee:t is a continuous, unending obligation to be able to be in libya. i would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we have no more than a year and i would offer to the white house that we would like reports sooner than that and some of us may wish to go forward with another resolution to move us out. i will not be supporting politics today. i have to support those who are fighting for justice in libya. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: i would beg to -- prior to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, because there are those of us who oppose this bill in principle an we believe we are fighting for justice as well. i want to state that if you believe the war should end, then at least believe we should limit it today. that's what mr. rooney does. i oppose this war, it's unconstitutional, it's in violation of statute, and there's a way to end the war, vote for rooney step one and the kucinich-amash amendment which defunds the d.o.d. bill, you can do that when we come back. but to claim that the arab league is somehow asking for us to continue this attack on libya is plain false. the fact of the matter is we have al jazeera reporting that italy's foreign minister and outgoing head of the arab league have called for a halt to
hostilities in libya. it was reported that two days ago, the outgoing head of the arab league, said now it's time to do whatever we can to reach a political solution and that has to start with a cease-fire uer international position. you don't have the arab league here saying come on, go for, prosecute the war. bomb libya. th are not saying that at all. we have to be very clear about that. even china who is eating our lunch financially, they are not involved in this war. they are saying there ought to be a political solion. that from the chinese minister two days ago. we have to be careful about our intentions here. and our intentions should be to end this war and we can do it with rooney's bill. the resolution isn't perfect. it doesn't end the war in its entirety immediately. but it does make clear that the united states will not take or the war as european suort continues to diminish.
the kucinich-amash amendment is complime complementary. we want to end u.s. involvement in the war in libya. vote yes for mr. rooney's bill which ends direct hostilities immediately and support kucinich-amash when it comes up in two weeks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. i thank ranking member smith for yielding me the time and ask unanimouconsent to place extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: i rise in support of this bill as the prior resolution, betr te than never. here again in libya, congress follows in the wake of major executive branch military action absent congressional authorization. i sent a letter to president obama on march 22 regarding what was then called operation morning dawn and never gotten an
answer. en one looks at the duration of u.s. military engagements i the middle east, north africa, and central asia and what the future might bring, these are the longest wars and military actions in u.s. history. our nation has fallen into deep debt directly connected to our expenditures of over $1 trillion in the past decade on wars that have not been paid for. and creeping defense commitments in that region and globally now consume over half of the u.s. discretionary budget annually. it is an astounding predicament 20 years after the end of the cold war. as jobless americans question whether our federal government sees their plight. we all know freedom is not free but it is largely the american people that are bearing this military burden more and more each year. what is most striking that other nations in the region in which we are fighting are simply not carrying anywhere near their fair share of the load of boots on the ground nor have they measured up in terms of putting their treasuries at risk. unless an alliance of nations in that region fight for frdom
themselves, they won't own it and we can't transfuse it. sadly compared to the moral justification for world war ii which historians termed american's most just foreign war, our nation in the current period is drawn into resource wars in far-flung place that is history is likely to judge as morally indefensible. the world is full of bad dictators but it always seems the dictators america's most interested in are those that sit atop huge oil reserves. libya has th world's nine largest oil reserves and exports 1.5 million barrels a day. i'll be placing several articles in the record that document west europe's dependence as well as canada's reliance on libya. the west utter and growing reliance on imported petroleum has twisted our foreign policy and crippled our domestic economy time and again. as we import half of what we consume, until americans clearly see our predicament, our nation
will keep repeating these same mistakes. let us be clear on the nature of the libyan economy. 95% of its exports are oil. 80% of its government revenue derives from oil sales. oil represents 25% of libya's g.d.p. and its most important industry. and libya is africa's third largest oil producer. the major powers involved in this military operation have vast interests at stake to the multinational oil corporations that operate in libya. whether it's from italy which gets 22% of its oil from libyan operations through firms like aimee or canada whose nato general is leading operations while canada's second largest corporation has major oil operations in libya. might i have an additional 15 seconds? miss smith: an additional 15 seconds. miss -- ms. kaptur: the son of colonel gaafi warned that in the event of a civilwar, libya's oilt
wealth would be burned. -- oil wealth would be burned. one can see why global powers took note. history will judge whether these resource wars and selected dictator disposals are justifiable, but the answer for america is to invest here at home and to restore america's energy independence and to extricate ourselves from all these foreign oil involvements. i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. rooney. i appreciate the time and also your advancing this resolution. the president has not made the case for committing our military to the conflict in libya. the president claims that these military action do not constitution hostilities. however the american people know otherwise. the president is engaged in military action against libya and the gaddafi regime without
congressional approval. in addition to ignoring congress, many believe that the president has exceeded the scope of the u.n. security council resolution imposing an embargo, a no-fly scone zone, and authorizing civil protection of the libyan people. the president has told us who we are against, gaddafi. but he cannot tell us who we are for. secretary gates has indicated that we know little about the opposition or rebels. do not know their geopolitical view, their neighbors, or us. we do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. are we going to have atrocities? we do not know their ideology or preferred form of government or if they have a commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an issue that is incredibly important in the area of libya. the president has used the united nations approval of liffle protection to wage an all-out war on gaddafi without congressional approval or american support. u.s. admiral lockleer in charge of the nato operations recentl
stated that ground troops would be needed to provide stability in libya once the gaddafi regime falls. and yet the president has not provided us any information about what a post-gaddafi libya will look like our our involvement. he is committing us ton extended military action and for congress to be relevant, the voices of this body need to be heard. i support the passage of mr. rooney's resolution limiting the use of funds appropriated in the d.o.d. in support of u.s. activities in libya unless otherwise authorized by law. this passage of this resolution is an important step to limit the role of the u.s. military. i urge passage of h.r. res. 2278. eld back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of h time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, member of the appropriations committee, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if this resolution passes and we weaken nato's mission, gaddafi may very well
prevail. his forces will then kill, rape, and torture all those libyans who oppose him as he is already trying to do. gaddafi has reportedly kidnapped thousas of people, including young students to serve as human shields and march at the vanguard of his forces. if any of his own soldiers refuse to gun down unarmed innocent civilians, they are shot immediately. once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those nato and middle eastern nation that is attacked him and seek revenge. remember, this is a man who is already responsible for the deaths of 189 innocent passengers on pan am 103. let's face it, this is not about whether the obama administration has been fellow enough in explaining the libyan rationale to congress. members understand why the president intervened. we can read. we can think.
we can decide. the real question is, will we politicize this effort in the same way that the republican congress politicized president clinton's successful intervention in a nato-led mission in bosnia years ago. . the limited action we're taking to support the nato mission in libya does not rise to a lel of conflict meant to be governed by the war powers resolution. presidents of both parties have initiated similar actions. in granada, panama, somalia, bosnia, hatey, kosovo. -- haiti, kosovo. you know, what this really is about, the purpose of this mission is to seize an opportunity to show the world, particularly the young majority of the arab and muslim world, who are thirsting for economic and political freedoms, that we are on their side. we have the opportunity to show the arab world at every -- and evernation on earth who we are as a people.
it shouldn't matter who's in the white house, we should be united in the cause of democracy. we should debate, but when the debate is over, politics should take a backseat to policy. the legacy of america is that we will fight tyranny and defend innocent people as best and as forcefully as we can. and good economic -- in good economic times and bad. this debate should come to an end. we know what's at stake. if gaddafi is allowed to violently suppress the uprising in libya, it will mean many more years of rule, isolated by his repulsive acts of repression and he would have nothing to lose by aiding violent, subversive groups in neighboring country, including those with vulnerable fledgling democracies like tunisia and egypt. that wouldn't only be a defeat for democracy in the region, it would be a death blow for nato, the most important military alliance the world has yet achieved. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates -- one more
minute. do you have one more minute? mr. smith: i yield the geneman an additional 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates put some of our nato allies for skipping on their commitments to t structure that is a key to our economic system and the open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, imagine if now we turned our backs on nato. what a global embarrassment. now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator, to give democracy and opportunity in a part of the world that has not experienced it. a part of the world which is vital to america's security. that's why i urge my colle >> that was house floor debate on friday on a bill. this is live look at the senate foreign relations committee. they are gaveling in to mark up
and authorization for military action in libya. just to let you know, the result of that vote on friday, that particular bill use of the debate on, would have cut defense spending for most military operations except for things like reconnaissance, search and rescue, etc. that fell on a vote of 180-238. the house also debated a resolution that would have authorized limited action in libya, but no ground troops. it is similar to what is being considered here by the senate foreign relations committee agreed that resolution fell by a vote of 123-295. live at the foreign relations committee. senator lugar, the ranking republican, according to "congressional quarterly," is expected to introduce five amendments to this resolution on the military operations in libya, including one that would bar defense funds from being used in libya except for certain activities. an amendment similar to the bill that fell in the house that you
saw the debate on and they're just a few minutes ago. we expect to hear from senator john kerry, the chairmen of the committee. others have come into the room and they it should gavel in shortly. earlier today, they heard from harold koh and others about the president's intervention in libya, military action along with the nato. president is actinllyt the in ordering intervention -- acting legally in ordering intervention. the testimony is available on anorg.bsite at c-span.o the senate itself is in to date. they are likely to debate a bill that streamlines the process for a presidential nominations. senator webb and senator casey on the democratic side as we wait for the chairman of the
senators, members of the senate foreign relations committee, are gathering, preparing to mark up legislation involving libya. this authorization resolution, as is called, is co-sponsored by senator john kerry, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, and the ranking republican on armed services, senator john mccain.
"gq" writes that has a a broad range of co-sponsors from both parties, but in the house, which voted down a pair of libya initiative last week, ambivalence is widespread. in 8 a "dear colleague" letter, senator lugar wrote that the resolution contains few, if any meaningful limits on u.s. involvement in libya. the white house has warned that such a restriction would be a boon to the libyan dictator muammar gaddafi, with the united states, along with european and arab enemies, is trying to oust. we expected the committee to get into session shortly. just to let you know our coverage plans, we are here to watch the markup session on this libya resolution. following that, we expect the committee to move on to
this is the senate foreign relations committee, and many of the 19 members have arrived. still waiting for the chairman, john kerry, to andarrive an -- to arrive and gavel this session in. the resolution would authorize limited military involvement in libya operation, but not ground troops. it is similar to a resolution that was debated and defeated in the u.s. house last week. the house also failed to pass a bill that would pretty much have eliminated most funding for military operations. that fell in the house by a vote of 180-238. you will see an amendment that will be debated here in the markup session that is similar to that house language as well. the house itself is out this week for the district work period. they are out for the fourth of
on the agenda, but we also have several nominations on the agenda. as everybody knows, the legislative item is s j res 20, of a rising limited use of the united states armed forces in support of the nato mission in libya. this was introduced by myself along with senators mccain, kyl, graham, and several others. obviously, we know we are going to have some debate today on a number of amendments. several votes on this item. i will leave the discussion about it for later and would first like to dispose of the nominations, if we can. we are considering nominations for a number of critical positions, including ambassadors to egypt,aqatar, -- qatar, kuwait and honduras.
all the nominees i think have been judged by the committees and subcommittees in the hearings to be very well qualified. i would like to move the nomination out of the committee today if possible. i think there has been a request for a hold over of the nomination of the ambassador to nicaragua. respecting that request, we will take up that nomination the next business meeting. i am not aware of request of the roll call vote for any of the nominations -- is there a motion to do so? >> i move. >> seconded? any further debate? if not, all those in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes have it, the nominations will be moved to the senate floor. i would like to turn to the primary reason we are here today, the resolution on libya. i have set a lot about this the
last weeks and you know where i stand. i will not 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. i think it was helpful that we heard from the legal adviser it of the state department the morning before we do consider this a vote. i think he clarify 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 clarified. i think this is the important thing -- say this to all my colleagues. i know there are colleagues here who believe that the communication could have been better, the process could have been handled better. senator corker is probably correct that we heard at the last minute about whether -- about what the particular rationale was with respect to the constitutional grounding. i think we can agree that we are
where we are. i would like, if we can, to stay as focused and disciplined as possible in trying to figure out what is the best way forward, how do we 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, potent and dangerous weapons out of the fight. if we sliced through the fog of this information and weighed the risks and benefits alongside our values and interests, which are always at stake, i think the argument can be made powerfully that the rationale for being there is compelling. i will reserve comments as we go forward with respect to the amendments. but i really do think the question here today is a fairly fundamental one.
do we at this particular moment -- muammar gaddafi is a bunker down in tripoli, when yesterday the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for him with charges of crimes against humanity, at a time when our armed forces are supporting an aid commission and prevent more such atrocities -- supporting a nato mission and prevented more such atrocities, do we want to stop the operation is what comes down to. there are some good amendments that been well thought out, we have worked them through, they can clarify issues that need clarification, that can help to refine some of the arguments and even some of the limits. i think that it's healthy, and i look forward to that. i personally believe that passage of this resolution can be an important step and will certainly be hurt by the rest of the world. i want -- be heard by the rest
of the world. i want to emphasize that to the rest of the committee, that what we're doing today is not of small consequence. i have always said to the members that we are strongest as a country and we advance our interests most effectively when we can find common ground. i hope we can find that common ground in the course of our deliberations now. 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. it secondly provides the authority expires one year after the enactment of this resolution. and thirdly, it clearly states that congress does not support and will not support sending ground troops into libya. i look forward to the amendments and to the debate. senator lugar, i think you have
opening surveys of proposals. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a short opening comment prior to that. i simply want to say that the day 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 a vital interest in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war. american combat forces are so efficient that certain types of operations, and our over-the- horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military institu -- military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation.
given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote a sizable economic and military resources to a civil war in libya. it is an extensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution is our responsibility to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. part of this process, we will consider the terms and the scope the joint resolution before us today. i am concerned at this resolution would provide a broad authorities permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president and to reescalate united states military involvement in libya to and
potentially beyond the role it played at the beginning of the operation, when it the united states carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. the resolution would only limit the president to actions in support of the united states national security policy interests and "to enforce the united nations security council resolution 1973." this would accommodate much more intense u.s. military action in 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 non-binding language indicating that congress "does not support" deployment of ground troops. the administration has said it has no plans to introduce ground troops in libya. strong majorities in both houses of congress opposed 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 could not require congressional authorization under the war powers resolution. allowing this assertion to stand unchallenged would increase the risk of presidents conducting a similar military interventions in the future without seeking or receiving congressional authorization. the resolution also lacks sufficient provision for a 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 narrowed the authorized all of the united states military forces to intelligence sharing, search and rescue assistance, and planning
support, second, establish a legally binding prohibition on the deployment of ground forces, third, specified the war powers resolution applies to current u.s. military operations in libya and that continuation of these operations would require congressional authorization, fourth, require a specific reports on the libya operation on strict deadlines, and fifth, expressed a sense of a congress that postwar reconstruction costs should be borne primarily by the libyan people and the arab league nations. i welcome the chance to consider these amendments and and and and offered by other members of the committee. i would like to be a co-sponsor to senator webb's amended. i appreciate the opportunity to make this statement. >> you have served on this committee longer than i have, and i am always pleased to be able to work with you on these issues. i am grateful to you for the
cooperation that we get in doing so. i believe that there is -- and i thank you for the contribution of these amendments. i think if they had been very important. i think there is broad consensus on four of your five amendments. potentially with some second- degree amendment. what i would like to do is say that the amendments on the libyan assets, if we can, to be considered at the end of the business meeting. but if we start with lugar amendment no. 1, regarding consent of congress aren't reconstruction and stabilization costs, i am not aware of second- degree amendments. senator lugar, if you want to speak your amendment, please do -- >> the purpose is to express the sense of the congress about funding, we construction, stabilization costs in libya. it would provide that such costs would be borne primarily by the libyan people and arab league countries, which requested
military intervention in libya. the president emphasized that our military involvement in libya was undertaken at a significant part in response to requests from the libyan opposition and the arab for these reasons, it is appropriate that these parties should shoulder these responsibilities following the conflict. expressing his expectation now all of these parties to plan appropriately to meet the costs. i urge members to support my amendment. >> senator lugar, i will support your amendment. i'm not aware of any second- degree amendments. is there any further debate on senator lugar's comment? if not, all those in favor say aye. ayes have it, the amendment is adopted unanimously. senator lugar, do you want to proceed here second -- >> mr. chairman? >> yes, yes, senator corker? >> it was my understanding that because of the nature of my
amendment no. 10, it was going to go, and then lugar no. 2, because they are related and the outcome of what affects the outcome of the other. >> uh -- >> that was my understanding. >> yeah --no, senator lugar, if that is fine with you -- >> that's fine. >> i have no problem with let us. >> co -- with that. >> corker no. 10 -- we had an interesting hearing today with a number of people on our committee here to be part of that hearing. on june 15, something very interesting happened -- unique happened, and that is that the
president sent over a letter stating that we were not involved in hostilities in libya. i think people on both sides of the aisle thought that was not the case, or at least the vast majority of people have thought, i think in the senate, that when you are involved in bombing military installations and doing what creditors do -- what predators do, that in fact is hostilities. my concern, which i expressed in the hearing and have allthe pree believes the war at this constitutional. then he has chosen to define hostilities in a way that was very different that was reported out of congress in 1973. what this amendment seeks to do is to say that the president within 30 days to state the war
out constitutional order to state that he in fact believes the war powers act is constitutional and we are in fact involved in hostilities. if we allied -- 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 is a republican president or democratic president, and i think democrats probably were read more in general about republican presidents from time to time, what that would do is allow the president in the future by his own definition to decide what hostilities are, and therefore to not consult with congress on this issue. all this does is cause the president to state clearly one way or another when you're involved in hostilities or does not believe the war powers act
to be constitutional. i believe without this clarification of what has happened, and i think it has happened in shock to many is what we're doing is setting a dangerous precedent for all presidents, regardless of what side of the idle they are on. i would urge support of this amendment. >> 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 cannot resolve. in the testimony today, many of you were here and heard it, some of you were not able to be able to be here, but the legal adviser 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 constitute stop hostilities half for the purposes of the resolution has been determined more by enter branch practice, then by a narrow pursing a dictionary definitions. in both branches have recognized that different situations may call for different responses, and specifically he pointed to how under president ford when this president -- question came said the terme should not be necessarily read to include situations where the nature of the mission is limited. situations that do not involve full military is engagements,
with which the resolution was principally concerned. where the exposure of u.s. forces is limited, situations involving sporadic military attacks on the armed forces, and where the risk of exhalation reject explanation is limited. it is clear for 40 years there has been a struggle over this question of when do or you do not consider the question that armed forces are introduced into hostilities. i would simply say to my friend that senator lugar's amendment does declare the authority for the limited use of the united states armed forces is intended to constitute specific legislation under the war powers resolution, and as such, is our determination that we are in hostilities.
because he adopted as under the war powers. under senator corp. first amendment, he require something further. he requires a certification from the president. -- under senator corker's amendment, he requires something further. the problem is the president has made it clear through his legal adviser in through their own statements, and they will believe either. you cannot pass something that requires the president to certify something that he just does not believe. when we have already adequately placed the power of the congress to declare that this fits the war powers act. our definition is what matters, not requiring something further
from their president. >> thank you. i think for the record it bears at least repeating how we got to the war powers act over the veto of president nixon. congress decided the president's opinion of constitutionality not withstanding we overrode his veto. i think that is something we should think about as we address your particular concern. there is no question president as commanders in chief do not necessarily want to wait on congress, and they are 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 at of the situation in libya, because they refused to authorize the activity and then refuse to defund the activity. you can understand why commanders in chief usually ask congress to get out of what
would it comes to national security when the house reaches a conclusion like that. i would say with all due respect, and i respect the president very much, his opinion on the constitutionality of this is irrelevant. we have established a lot of the land, and we are enforcing it. i think senator lugar's action is very clear and direct, that we're seeing this fits under the war powers act. should the president if i else, and i hope he does not, i would say at the top point it goes to another branch of government. -- should the president defy us, and i hope he does not, i would say at that point, it goes to another branch of government. >> 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 have an
obligation to deal with this by resolution. i am going to support senator lugar's amendment, because it think it clarifies the issue and makes it clear that the war powers act was in fact triggered and the president should respect that. i do not think we can resolve a conflict between the executive and legislative branch. i just do not think we can do it. there may even be other options that the president believes, other than thie two that were listed in options. i think he has tried to make it crystal clear about the war powers, but i do not think we can resolve this issue and this resolution. we may want to revisit the war powers act. in this resolution dealing with the libya situation, we make it clear the war powers act has been triggered, and i think senator lugar's amendment makes it even stronger, and i will support it. i think you're a man in texas in
the direction that is not appropriate for us to do. >> i would add that i neglected to mention this, but senator lugar's amendment specifically states that our actions constitute hostilities. so there is a very specific embrace of the war powers act and the fact of hostilities. >> i have accomplished what i wanted to accomplish. i think the administration has been cute in their response, and i think has created a mini firestone -- firestorm in congress by being cute comment in response about whether we have hostilities on going or not.
i realize the votes will be against, and in especially in light of the fact that senator lugar has clarified this, and that is why i wanted to go in think ae of him, but i precedent is being said here where a president by himself can decide what hostilities are or are not, 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. i withdraw the amendment. >> i have great respect for your contributions of the committee and your participation here and thoughts on it. i think that history has shown that this question of hostilities is not necessarily one of cuteness, it is one of judgment, and particularly where the particular categories
all the way they do, and i would ask simply that this record of this deliberation reflect the testimony of legal adviser harold koh. . i would put that in the record at this time so it is clear for those that look at this issue. that said, is there any further debate on this issue? >> procedurally, are we at lugar 2? >> i withdrew it. >> procedurally it is important for those trying to follow the flow of the argument. what i took from the dialogue back and forth is that many of us agree that it is important to clarify whether or not the interpretation of hostilities is one that we accept. the lugar amendment strongly disagrees with that and suggest
we are currently engaged in hostilities in the war powers act is triggered. i will respectfully agree that i think the best path forward is for us to assert an act. i do think after this morning's hearing that there are real questions being raised about future conflicts. there are important questions of precedents about cyber war, that are worth consideration that are heavily influenced by you the need circumstances or unusual facts that pertain with the libyan conflict. to go i agree with you completely, and i think all of us will need to spend time at some point dealing with this issue on the war powers act and try to figure out what it will more or fair or cyber warfare and so forth will trigger or not trigger, so it has been a very healthy contribution to it. with that in mind, the procedure
would be to vote first on the corker amendment. in that case, the pending amendment is the lugar amendment no. 2. any further debate on the grim and never too? >> i intend to support the amendment and state that even while i do support it, i continue to have questions about the competition malady of the war powers -- constitutionality of the war powers. >> we now go to lugar no. 3.
the purpose of this is to deploy u.s. ground forces in libya. this allows for uncertainty on this point. it contained language indicating that congress does not support the deployment of ground troops. this language is non-binding, and it would leave open the possibility the president would rely on the authorization contained in the resolution to deploy ground troops. given the 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 inappropriate for congress to prohibit the deployment of ground forces in libya. if the present 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. in the future -- future of
rescission would override my amendment. senator boxer has asked to be added as a co-sponsor of this amendment, and i asked that she be so added. >> absolutely without objection. >> the second agreement that would expand my amendment to prohibit the deployment of u.s. ground forces in libya for post- conflict roles such as peacekeeping. it would also extend the prohibition to prevent the united states from deploying private contractors on the ground in libya. a deeper shade these constructive additions to my amendment, and ask members to support my amendment and the second-degree amendment. >> there are two second-degree amendments. a few of us did go down and have
a good colloquy with senator kerrey on this. clearly senator kerrey was very clear that there was nothing in the underlying bill that authorizes the use of ground troops, but nothing that prohibits the use of ground troops. i am very glad senator kerrey is supporting it, and i wondered if we might support what senator web is trying to do, which is not to allow ground troops in any peacekeeping force and other operations. i want to make sure when, if i could come ask senator whether whether this will preclude any kind of funding for others to do the peacekeeping work, or is it just came up boots on the ground? >> it would not. as senator lugar points out, the
attempt of the amendment or the purpose of the amendment is to provide 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 peacekeeping operations following the removal of the muammar gaddafi regime. there has been a lot of discussion back and forth as to what it means when we say no boots on the ground. the house voted 405 votes to prohibit groups on the ground, but the question has not been answered as to what happens when muammar gaddafi falls? to answer senator boxer's question, this is not intended to address the issue of funding
at all. the language that was perfected by legislative council says no members for the purposes of supporting the stabilization authorization. also does amendment is to say there should not be contracts for private security contractors to do those sorts of things. it was too important exceptions. one is for the immediate personal defense for the united states officials or for rescuing members of nato forces. and then have in an attempt to separate what we're doing -- and then in an attempt to separate what we're doing now from when he does leave, it says if the president certifies to congress that action is necessary, and then he can come to the congress and ask for legislation to be enacted specifically authorizing further operations. this allows us to clarify what
the 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 cannot really predict what is going to happen in the coming months. again, i very much appreciate senator lugar's co-sponsorship of the second amendment. >> there are some issues raised by virtue of that. i want to let other colleagues have a chance. i will come back to it. >> senator web, if i could clarify. would it prohibit the united states funds from being used to support or sustain multilateral peacekeeping? 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? >> unfortunately that is not the way the language would be
interpreted the way it is written i would be happy to work with you, but it is specifically for international relations supported. this could be interpreted that even the relationship the united nations could not be spent with respect to peacekeeping. it is frankly too broad. if there is a way to narrow that, i would be happy to work with you. i understand exactly what you are trying to do, but i also think we should 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. i think if we start reaching too far here, trying to think of every possible scenario, post-
muammar gaddafi we might end up tying ourselves in not just by reaching a little too far. i do think your effort on contractor should be part of it, and i would be prepared to accept that. i think that makes sense and should be part of what is potentially boots on the ground, but if we go so far as to say no funds can be spent regarding stabilization, that could be economic development. >> we sat down with legislative council on this, and it was actually someone who spent four years drafting this in an earlier life. if you read this, it says no funds for the purpose of deploying units or members for those purposes. it does not say no funds for the purposes. if someone wants to put a further clarification in their
-- that is the way that statute would be read. >> would you support the word supporting to participating in? >> i would not cover problem with that. -- i would not have a problem with that. >> if there is no objection, we will consider so modified and we will take them in order that we need to, which is second degree. e supporting this, that makes mine not necessary. >> as long as we were able to
revise it, and we have so revised it, so i would be prepared to accept it. is there any further debate on this? >> i do have a question for mr. weber and lugar. in reading this last night, the thought occurred to me about the deployment of special operation it it became necessary. is the exception in the opinion, that is a southern term for both of you [laughter] is it your opinion that the security of personnel in vader forces could be construed to be broad enough to get the latitude to deploy it team for a specific targeted mission and bring them out, or would they have to come to the congress for approval of that? >> it would be my reading of this amendment that there is no terminology's in this amendment that address national command authority. >> so the answer is that
restriction would not exist by virtue of this plan? >> my reading of it certainly would not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> can you clarify the change in language were looking for? amendment. web's >> page two of the web amendment. the words supporting would be changed to read participating in n.abilization caria senator anddurbin. >>in. -- senator durbin. >> i am sorry to delay this. his answer was you could send in a sealed team in the mission under national command authority, which suggests to me
that the president could send in more than the seal team under national command authority, so could senator web clarify that? >> it was not the intention of this amendment to address that part of our national security. >> can i suggest this so that we do not step in any holes we do not mean to, that we temporarily set aside this amendment that we have staff and get together just to make sure that we are in agreement as to the meaning of the language, and then we can come back and deal with this with regard to the amendment. >> that is acceptable, but as i understand what he is trying to do he is 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 is a reasonable request. that is the main thrust to say it requires authorization. >> there is an exception paragraph that speaks to certain situations in which the president might be able to deploy for the rescue of government personnel for dealing with the emergency/natal. -- emergency and nato. >> i think senator web is trying to make sure we do not get involved in the long-term stabilization presents without specific authorization from congress. >> here is another way of putting this. we always at the end of the process ask for permission of the committee to do technical changes necessary. i think the intent is clear that this would qualify as a technical change if necessary.
yes, senator. to go mr. chairman, i understand what has been said, but that is not the question senator isaacson asked. he asked if the president sends in a mission that goes beyond the exceptions, and i heard the answer from senator web, yes. it is no longer a question of precluding deployment except in certain institutions. it is precluding deployment except in certain instances and still not precluding the president's authority as commander in chief to send in the seal team, for grabrigade oe more for a mission. >> that is clearly not what is meant for command authority. >> i do not get the excitement about this. the commander in chief can do that any date of the week anywhere in the world. there is nothing in senator web's response to this that
should surprise anyone. if the commander in chief believes it is necessary to send in troops anywhere in the world for our national security, he can do that. to go if i may clarify the term, the national planned authority -- >> if i may clarify the team, but the national planned authority, when osama bin laden was taken out, it was a seal team but they were under the authority of the cia. that is beyond the intent. what we're trying to do is make very clear that this prohibition everyone keeps talking about during this time against ground forces should continue after muammar gaddafi leaves a we do not end up in the same situation that we were in beirut in 1983. >> i think the language here is actually pretty clear, folks.
it is paragraph eight that simply says the money cannot be obligated -- a paragraph a that says the money cannot be obligated for deploying units. following the removal of muammar gaddafi from governments and during the transition to a new government in libya. it is clear limited in time, space, and 10, and i think under those circumstances is part of the overall message to say that american troops will not be on the grounds in libya. is there any further discussion with respect to what is now on the table.
>> i will support the amendment, but it is with mixed feelings. i think this underscores what we're doing here. we cannot fight hostilities with 100 general spirited you need a commander in chief who has full authority to do what he needs to do. this thing comes to us in just a messy background. we have nato commitments we need to think about. we of other central security issues are around the world including pakistan, yemen, in somalia. we have looming insolvency in this country that gets worse every day and lack of at definitional goal of where we're headed in turkey. to put all these things together and try to make the constitutional and other decisions, it could not be in a worst case scenario and background and what we're dealing with here. i will support it, but i have real reservations about it. >> welcome to the united states
congress. [laughter] if there is no further discussion, we will vote on teh he web amendment. the ayes have it, and the web at amendment is adopted. now senator lugar's is the pending amendment. is there any further discussion on bill blogger amendment? if not, all those in favor of the lugar amendment say i. the ayes have it. the lugar amendment is adopted. we now move to lugar amendment number four. >> mr. president, member for -- member for is to limit the military scope of operations in libya that would be authorized under the resolution. in particular, my amendment would restrict u.s. military operations to search and rescue,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. and operational planning. including airstrikes followed up by aircraft or armed drones. 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 of the united states forces played at the beginning of the conflict in the united states carried out intensive air strikes on a daily basis. i believe such an expansive -- expanded u.s. military role is unwise. i urge members to narrow the scope of our military involvement in libya as suggested in my amendment, namely search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance, and
-- reconnaissance and operational planning. that would be the extent of the mission. >> senator lugar, this is the only amendment of yours that i feel compelled to oppose. i would say to my colleagues that even in the house of representatives where many of us had questions about what the approach was, they voted down a similar restriction. in effect, this would needlessly tie the hands of the commander in chief, but i think it tells oneto, muammar gaddafi, and the rest of the world that we are simply not going to finish the job. -- nato, muammar gaddafi, and the rest of the world that we're simply not going to finish the job here. the drones protect civilians.
they have the ability to be able to discriminate between who is too, because you have the ability to watch for a considerable amount of time what is happening before you do something. because of that you were able to do a better job of protecting civilians, which was the original content -- intent of the u.n. engagement and the request for nato involvement. i know others are well versed in this. some of you serve on the intelligence committee and very aware of the capacity we get through that. because we have the ability to survey the battlefield for a long amount of time, we can distinguish between rebels, muammar gaddafi forces, to see where people come from and where they're going, and that 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 wants to achieve, but i do believe it would tie the hands
of 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 this amendment? if there is no further debate, i think we do want to vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. boxer? >> no by proxy. >> mr. menendez? >> no by proxy? >> [inaudible] >> mr. casey? >> no. >> mr. web? >> no. >> mr. durbin? >> no. >> mr. utal? >> no by proxy? . >> mr. rubio?
>> no. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. demint? >> aye by proxy. >> mr. isaacson? >> [inaudible] >> mr. lee? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> 5 ayes, 14 nays. >> may i be recorded at the lis a live no? >> yes, you will be recorded. >> mr. udah is doing his business in mexico and appropriately. we now turn to senator menendez.
excuse me, senator lugar. the purpose of this amendment is to enhance congress's ability to conduct responsible oversight of any continued united states military operations in libya. it would require periodic reporting on the cost of operation and how these costs are being paid for. would also require periodic reporting on the impact of the ongoing operations in libya on other u.s. and nato military operations, including operations taliban and al qaeda. given that the resolution would authorize military operations that could go on for as much as a year, and could expand in scope from current operations, i believe it is important that congress had the necessary tools
to conduct oversight of these issues and to know their cost. i urge members to support the amendment. >> senator lugar, this is another excellent addition, and i believe senator corker has the second degree. i believe originally there was a 15-day reporting period 60-day. senator corker is willing to do 30. i think that is reasonable to have adequate oversight. do you want to propose the second degree? >> i will acquiesce to our chairman and a 30-day reporting. i would like to change our reporting to request 30 days reporting. >> any objection in modifying the original corker of them at this time? all those in favor of the court remanded to the liberal amendment say i. the ayes have it. the lugar amendment as so amended. -- is now so amended.
the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. now i think we do proceed to senator menendez' amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this as an amendment number six, which i have ask unanimous consent to modify, basically narrowing the recorded requirements by eliminating section c, 96-13. this amendment is pretty simple. i would hope we have the support of all of our colleagues. on december 21, 1988, pan am 103 exploded over lockerbie, scotland.
34 were from my home state of new jersey. 12 years later the individual who was convicted of conspiracy for planting the bomb that brought down the flight was sent to a scottish prison to serve a life sentence. in august of 2009 he was released on compassionate grounds on behalf of the scottish government and said he had less than three years -- three months to live. these families have been searching for justice and answers for more than 20 years. the rupture of the muammar gaddafi government represents a real opportunity to learn who ordered the bombing, who collected the intelligence to carry out the plan, and in addition, who bears responsibility for this and other attacks and who should be brought to justice. it does three things. it requires the president to continue any investigative activities into the bombing of pan am 103 and other terrorist attacks contributed to the
muammar gaddafi government. it states that the president shall urge the transitional national council and any successor government to cooperate with the purchase of it with in the investigation. it states that the president shall consider the cooperation of any successor government of libya with respect to the investigation when making decisions about the distribution of confiscated property and the division of u.s. assistance. it has a more narrow reporting requirements. i think justice dictates its, and it is our opportunity to get justice for the families of american citizens, and i hope we could have support of the full committee. >> i think it is in mexico it -- i think it is an excellent amendment. i do not think anyone has been more diligent than you in raising the appropriate questions and seeking out accountability on this topic. i join with you in thinking with the modification and limitation i think it is a good amendment. i will support this amendment.
is there any further debate on this amendment? if not, all those in favor of the menendez mmm as modified say i. -- amendment as modified say aye. the ayes have it. >> it is my understanding this amendment is acceptable to the chairman, but basically it is ambiguous in the underlying text has to what the differences between the military and political goals are and what it seeks to clarify it as the removal of muammar gaddafi as the political goal and not military goal. i think that is successful to the german and for a week -- i think that is successful to the chairman. >> i agree with you. i think it is a good amendment. i think the amendment is self-
explanatory on the reading, and i appreciate the distinction you have drawn. i think that is an important distinction and its the white house definition of its policy. is there any further debate with respect to this amendment? if not, all those in favor of corporate amendment no. 7 clarifying goals say aye. ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. we will bypass corker no. 8 and go to no. 9. >> we just agreed momentarily ago to have a 30-day briefings as a relates to one portion of this resolution, and what this will do is make sure in all areas of this resolution we receive 30-day updates. i would assume>>nyebate? if not, as modified for 30 days,
all those in favor of the court for amendment number 9 say i. -- say aye. the amendment is adopted. >> no. 11. right now the resolution authorizes the use of military force for a year. nato -- its mission is only through september 27. what this amendment would do is state that military operations are authorized for a year and left nato's suspend operations sooner, at which time our operations would also be suspended. ands of what we're doing what nato has stated it is doing through its resolution. and i understand that is acceptable to leadership. >> let me ask you if you would be willing to make one modification to it. as it now reads, because it
says the date of authorization, it is possible for someone to interpret that as simply being september 27, which is when the current authorization changes. i think you have to reflect the likelihood -- obviously hope -- everyone hopes it will be open by then, but if it is not, we do not want to have the authorization and send the message to muammar gaddafi that that is what it is tied to. i would ask you if he would change the work authorization to operations. on the date that nato operations and spirited if you do that, i think we are unambiguous. is there any objection to the modification? if not, then it is modified. all those in favor of the core of them as modified? -- corporate mmm as modified? amendment is passed as
modified. senator rubio, i understand you plan to only offer one of your three amendments? >> i want to withdraw 12 and 13. >> without objection they are withdrawn. >> i would like unanimous consent to modify no. 14. the text has been passed around. the best way to understand it is it basically combines my amendment 14 with senator isaacson's 16. it is all -- it also asks that the funds of the regime be used to reimburse the united states for spencer it -- expenses occurred with operation unified
protector. it also should be used for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance and to make sure fulfillment awards. those are victims of terrorist acts. that is what the amendment is basically and would take a member of 14, 15, and 16 and turn them into one. >> thank you very much. it is very constructive amendment or a number of reason. first of all, many of us have about the concerned have bee transnational committee. others have suggested that the united states should be doing so. there are technical reasons and clear legal reasons as to why we have not, which relate to a lot
of different things, including the behavior standards that are applied to muammar gaddafi at this moment in time under international law. that said, i think the sentiment expressed by the senator of the united states is an important message to that council. it is a message to muammar gaddafi and the world and our allies. we are engaged in this endeavor, at the same time, i think i raised this issue initially in one of the hearings, and we put in legislation with respect to the use of muammar gaddafi frozen assets and a long-term payment. i think one of the benefits of successful outcomes in libya, when it happens, is that this is a country of 6 million people. it is actually smaller and population the of the population my state, massachusetts, but it is an enormous country with vast assets, in particular revenues from oil.
i think therefore there is a huge ability to have a manageable post-muammar gaddafi effort, but at the same time our expenses are important. i think senator isaacson wanted to encompass and 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 embraced that. so i personally will support this amendment. i think it is a good one. senator lugar, i think he wanted to comment. >> mr. chairman, i am doubtful about the current value of this amendment for these reasons. the tnc is self-appointed and an elected. it does not represent the full libyan society or all zero elements that will form a
successful libyan government. we really do not know who all the rebels are. in addition, representatives of the tnc and representatives of the areas that remain under control are forced to remain anonymous, clouding our understanding of their composition. there are also legal complications to recognizing this. doing so could have the perverse effect of absolving libyan regime of carrying out legal obligations, including compliance with u.n. security council resolutions, because they 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 pre- judge before the parameters of the successor government are fully known. it is for these treatments are
will oppose the amendment. -- reasons that i will oppose the amendment. >> maybe senator rubio has had the opportunity to meet with the members of the rebel government. i just feel very uncomfortable. i'd like the intent of what you're doing. i support what we're doing in libya, but i feel uncomfortable. 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 post. i am very respectful of this amendment, its intent, and i am respectful of the chairman supporting it. i do want the proceeds that we get from muammar gaddafi to go to reimburse us. i actually like my friend's
amendment. this one is a little more vague about how we distribute it. unfortunately i would oppose this unless the senator will want to work with us and maybe try to modify it in some way. to go thank you. all on the-- >> thank you. on the issue of the transitional council i would like to say a few things. the reason why this is important is i think we all, in respect of of where we fall on this issue, share a common goal of this thing and then as soon as possible. one thing is to convince the inner circle of muammar gaddafi that his days are numbered. this is critical to that. obviously a lot will have to happen after he is gone one way the other, but many other nations have already done this. i think that the united states -- or at least a statement from
congress that the president should do it will really give added weight to those within the inner circle to conclude that he is doomed and his days are numbered and time to abandon him and that will accelerate the process of ending this conflict. i think it is critically important that a statement like this be made by the senate, and i hope i can persuade my colleagues to support it. >> i have an abundance of caution. >> you always have that right. in the event it is not right, we can deal with the division or a separate amendment. i understand. you are not exhibiting some trepidation about the outcome of this are you? >> i learned being insecure is the best way to act. >> i was going to ask for a division, because i think there
are two separate issues. one is the recognition of the transitional national council. the other one is reimbursement of funds for the cost of operations. i support senator isaacson's division on the reimbursement of funds for the cost. let me just explain why i oppose the resolution here on recognition. this resolution is a resolution where congress is exercising its constitutional authority. we should be involved in that. at the responsibility of recognition for us with the president. i would suggest we can weigh in at the appropriate time, but i do not think this is the appropriate time or a vehicle for us to weigh in on recognition of the transitional national council, so i will oppose the park but ask for a division or separate amendment so we could vote on the reimbursement of funds. >> the senator has a right to
ask for a division, and they -- and therefore we will have to boats as/section -- two votes as divided by section 1 and 2. is there further debate on this? senator koontz. >> it would be helpful for the legal adviser when he suggested when asked that the resignation does not get happened that it strengthens the ability of the united states potentially hold legally accountable in international courts of the muammar gaddafi regime. i am wondering whether this also has in a consequence for the issues raised by senator isaacson that i support, meaning securing reimbursement potentially or a settlement of claims. i do not know if that plays a role in that. i agree with what i think is an applaudable bowl, mainly bringing this to a conclusion as
rapidly as possible, sending signals to the leadership around muammar gaddafi that we support his rapid removal or departure from power, but frankly at the end of the day lacking the resolution am inclined to leave it to the judgment of the department of state. >> let me say to colleagues that i understand every colleague wanted to reserve the right on this to vote according to as they see fit in regards to the advice of the legal adviser. with restart -- respect to this a good part of this, that is being worked on right now through all of the legal hoops, and we do have legislation before us in the senate that will further that. this is a sense of the senate. i want to emphasize that to everyone, so that it does not tie anyone's hands. >> i think it is important to understand that even though, what we might do maybe symbolic
in nature, it does send a message. most of you believe this as well the people involved in this conflict in libya are paying attention to this, and it will have an impact on them psychologically and how they behave. -- in how they behave. so if there are any questions or any doubt, i would prefer to withdraw that amendment rather than have a vote and send the message of that perr andt. -- that. i would suggest by unanimous consent that you allow me to an amended by mmm and withdraw the amendment number 14 and we can proceed -- >> actually what i would ask you to do is withdraw to modify your amendment, to withdraw
division one so that it is still your amendment with respect to senator isaacson and senator in half with respect to the division to peace. is there objection to senator rubio amending his amendment in the way i just described? therefore, we will vote on the rubio amendment as a modified. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the amendment is passed. that brings us now to a vote on final passage. is there any further comment on the resolution? if not, the clerk will call the roll. >> very briefly, could have unanimous consent to include at this point in the record my same as to why we are voting yes? >> absolutely. statement of all senators with respect to their boats will be
placed in the record as stated light and in full. could i say a word to all the members of the committee before we have the final vote? i really want to express my appreciation for the way in which we were able to proceed through this market. this can be complicated, it can be contentious, everyone has worked unbelievably diligently and in good faith to work through the best interest of our country, and i want to express my appreciation for the cooperative way in which this has been approached. i think it has been very responsible, and i think the outcome reflects that. that said, will the clerk please call the roll? >> mr. foster? >> aye. >> mr. menendez? >> aye. >> mr. web? >> aye. >> [inaudible] >> aye by proxy. >> mr. coon?
>> aye. >> mr. lugar? >> no. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. demint? >> no by proxy. >> mr. isaacson? >> aye. >> [inaudible] >> aye. >> mr. lee? >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> 14 ayes, . >> the resolution is approved, and hopefully we will take it up on the senate floor. i want to thank all members for their prompt attendance and good work. the minority views will be reflected in the report, and if there is any technical change that needs to be made, we will
the deliberation. he testified about the u.s. war powers act and the involvement in libya. after that, you will see what happened here indeed the hearing room. -- in the the hearing room. after that, remarks from tim pawlenty on the president's foreign policy. after that, tom coburn and joe lieberman unveiled their proposal on reducing medicare spending. all that is getting under way at 8:00. tuesday marks robert gates final day on the job. we will bring you a live armed forces tribute. he will be replaced by former congressman and cia director. that ceremony is live beginning
at 9:45 eastern. the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. look for continued debate at c- span's congressional chronicle. find the daily schedule and committee hearings. >> my name is michele bachmann. i stand here in the midst of many friends and many family members to announce formally my candidacy for president of the united states. >> as the field of republican candidates continues to take shape, follow the candidates announcements and look back at their careers, at the c-span video library.
-- iowa. i see a couple of old friends here. i want to start by recognizing a few folks you are with us today. the governor is here. [applause] the congressman is here. [applause] bobby shilling is here. the mayor of riverdale is here. [applause] the chairwoman of the national association of manufacturers is here. [applause] the ceo of alcoa is here.
[applause] vice president and general manager of davenport is here. [applause] an old friend of mine who actually drove me around a couple of times while i was traveling around iowa this year. -- is here. [applause] you know, i know you have been seeing a lot of politicians around lately. something tells me that you may see a few more before february is over. iowa, you and i go along way back. those of you were coming over from illinois, we go even longer back. we have some history together.
together, we will make some more history for years to come. that is why i am so glad to be here at alcoa. all of you are showing the future we can build here in eastern iowa and all across the country. almost every airplane in the world's has some kind of alcoa product and it. think about that. every airplane and the world, you guys have something to do with. [applause] in fact, it turns out that you were responsible for the wings on the air force one. i want to thank all of you for getting me here in one piece. it was a pretty smooth ride. this company was founded by a college student named charles
martin hall 125 years ago. back then, it produced about 50 pounds of aluminum a day. it was so hard that folks kept on telling charles that it was pointless to lock up the plant at night because nobody wanted this stuff. when the wright brothers needed a lightweight material for their plane, they turned to alcoa. this company has not looked back ever since. when president kennedy challenged america to go to the moon, your engineers produced the alloy that helped get a man on demand. in afghanistan -- get a man on a moon.
in afghanistan, you helped provide our troops with the armor they need to protect their vehicles. when i go to walter reed or bethesda and i think about all the lies that you guys have saved, it makes me proud of what you do right here. today, your new aluminum lithium alloy is making some of the world's most advanced airplanes lighter. and tougher. and more cost-effective than ever. times change, and you have seen times change. alcoa has grown hazmat -- caller: has grown as america has grown. -- alcoa has grown as america has grown. some ways -- sometimes the old ways of doing things just will not cut it anymore.
for a while, at you guys lost market share completely. you got your team together and redesigned it and now you have 80% of the market back. [applause] wind change happens, you have a choice. you can either keep on doing what you are doing and hope things work out, or you can make a decision to not only meet the challenge of the future, but you can help set the pace. that is true for this company and it is true for america. for better or for worse, our generation has seen more than our fair share of economic change. revolutions in technology have changed the way be lived and the way we work. a lot of jobs can now be located
anywhere there is an internet connection. companies have become more efficient. they get by with fewer workers. in some ways, these changes have made our lives a lot easier. it makes products cheaper. you can produce them faster. but for a lot of our friends and neighbors, these changes have caused a whole lot of pain. today, for example, a high- school diploma no longer guarantees you a good job. imad a couple of guys here whose fathers had worked at the plant. when the previous generation came to work at this plant, it did not matter what kind of education you had. it is mattered if you were willing to work hard. but these days, it is hard to find a job without a high-school diploma and without a college diploma.
over the past 15 years, about a third of all manufacturing jobs have vanished. it is not just that they have gone overseas, you guys are just better at producing stuff now than you used to be. you use for it -- you use fewer workers. meanwhile, a lot of workers have seen their wages not keep up with rising costs. i spent a lot of time thinking about these issues when i ran for this office and the first place, when i ran for president. before i came to iowa, when i was a senator in illinois, i kept on thinking about all the folks i would meet in my travels who were feeling that squeeze but wages flat, costs going up. in the closing weeks of the campaign, the bottom fell out of the economy. the middle class got hammered some more.
alcoa got hit pretty good too. that demanded that we make some tough decisions. this is is that we now know have pulled our economy back from the brink and put us on a better path. we have created more than 2 million new private-sector jobs over the last 15 months alone, including two under 50,000 in manufacturing -- to under 50,000 -- 250,000 in manufacturing. here at this plant, the workers that were laid off during the darkest days of the recession have all been hired back. in fact, you guys were telling me that you are thinking about hiring some more folks in the near future. that is worth applauding. [applause]
for a lot of americans, those numbers do not matter much because they are still at of work. they have a job that does not pay enough to pay the mortgage or the bells. we have more work to do. that work is going to take some time. the problems that we develop did not happen overnight and we will not solve them overnight. but we will solve them. we will solve them because after all we have been through, we are still the united states of america. we have the largest economy, the best universities, the most successful companies, the best innovators, at the best workers in the world. [applause] together, we've got the capacity to not only get back to where we were, but to get to where we need to be. that is why i ran for president,
to get us where we need to be. iran because i believed in and america were working families -- i ran because i believed in america. i believe in an america where the government lives within its means while investing in things that will help us grow. a world-class educational system and cutting edge of innovation and the best transportation and communication systems anywhere in the world. that is how we're going to make america the best place to create good, middle-class jobs. that is how we will win the future. by doing the smart things right now to help the middle class grow and feel more secure. a big part of that to come at a big part of our future has to be a robust and growing manufacturing sector.
we have to make things right here in america. [applause] we have always made things here in america. it is in our blood. this plant has been in operation for 60 years. what you have learned is if you want to beat the competition, you have to innovate. you have to invest in new process these, invest in new products. i was just learning that some of the heck with it behind us, at this -- some of the equipment behind us, this was a huge investment. $90 million. think about that. that is what made you guys competitive, having the best workers, but also having the best equipment. you had to cut your game. -- up your game.
i want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the prowled stamp that says, "made in america." that is what i want. [applause] that is why two years ago, we stood by the auto industry and kept some of our nation's largest auto makers from being sold for parts. today, for the first time, the big three auto makers are turning a profit and putting steel workers to work. [applause] we also told those companies that they would have to make some changes to compete. we brought people together and sets the first new fuel mileage standards in more than 30 years. that means fewer trips to the pumps and less harmful pollution.
this plant had something to do with it. more light weight, more efficient. that means your business has improved as well. everybody wins. that is why i announced last week a new partnership between our top engineering schools, our most innovative manufacturers, and the federal government to get american products from the drawing board to the factory floor to the marketplace as quickly as possible. today, i am proud to announce that alcoa is joining the partnership. [applause] the idea is to create jobs now and to make sure america stays on the cutting edge of manufacturing for years to come. we also know that strengthening
our manufacturing sector requires workers getting the skills and training they need. today, there are more than four job-seekers for every job opening in america. everyone job, there are four folks looking for work. when it comes to the high-tech field, at the opposite to is true. -- high-tech field, the opposite is true. until three weeks ago, we announced new commitments from businesses and universities to make it possible for 500,000 community college students to earn industry accepted credentials for manufacturing jobs that companies are looking to fill. to company's, they will say the community colleges, here is what we need. the community colleges will design a training program that certifies that if you get through that training program, you are prepared to get that
job. we are making it easier for workers to get retrained and moved up into better positions. these steps will not help solve every problem that we face. no matter what you may hear, there is no silver bullet to reverse a decade of economic challenges. we have had problems for 10 years. it is not gone to reverse overnight. these steps will help us move forward. they will help us grow our economy today and they will guarantee a better future for our children. i know these are difficult times. many of you probably have friends who are looking for work or family members who are looking for work or are just getting by. when that happens, sometimes it is tempting to turn cenacle. be doubtful about -- sunoco --
cynical. that is not the america that i know. that is not the america i see here and in communities all across the country. i see an america where people do not give up, people do not quite. i see companies like alcoa, where reinvention is a part of life. i know you want to be a part of it. that spirit has always been at the heart of our american story. as i was walking in, your team talked about a saint that says, nobody is perfect. but a team can be perfect. none of us individually are perfect. as a team, america can perfect ourselves. we have to start working like a team. instead of having the kind of
squabbling we see in washington all the time, and everybody has to start thinking together, the weight engineers and workers -- away engineers and workers stick together. what is the product that we want to produce? how can we make it better? how can we cut costs? how can we retrain our workers? problem-solving all the time, that is what has made you successful. that is what will make america's successful. by adapting and innovating, but thinking like a team. instead of turning on each other. i promise you, if we continue to adapt and innovate and we work together, america will come back stronger than before. we will lead the way forward and we will make the next century another great american century. thank you very much, alcoa, for leading the way.
host: scott paul, the executive director for the alliance for american manufacturing. the manufacturing initiative. what did you make of it? guest: it is a good step. we are playing catch-up on partnerships like that to spur on manufacturing. one of the barriers that manufacturing firms have is bringing new technology to the factory floor. that is a perfectly appropriate role for the federal government. something that a lot of governments do. used to do it in the 1980's, and before that, we have a long history of it. i think it is a welcome, necessary step. we need to do more to make our manufacturing sector more competitive, but it is depilate a step in the right direction,
will keep good paying manufacturing jobs in the united states. host: the president said, i am calling on all sectors to come together to help our manufacturing develop the cutting edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world. you say we are playing catch-up. should we focus more on high tech and new innovative technologies, should we focus on dumping more rudimentary at first? guest: the line between high tech and traditional is blurred. when you look at your average steel well, it is -- steel mi, it is mpletely different. workers are in air-conditioned pulpits, using laser-guided instruments. manufacturing is far more advanced than it used to be. the president will be showing that today at alcoa.
a very traditional metals manufacturer, but they are also high tech. high tech. there is this high tech sector out there, circuit boards, optical electronics. we did not care where the production occurred. as a result, we got left behind on a lot of the latest and greatest invention in robotics. having an approach that involves academic institutions, manufacturers, as well as the federal government, to provide the glue for it, will be beneficial for firms across the manufacturing spectrum, from the small mom-and-pop, to the large multinationals. host: scott paul, the founding director for the alliance for american manufacturing. you can join the conversation. republicans, 202-624-1115. democrats, 202-624-1111.
independents, 202-624-0760. we are on e-mail at journal@c- span.org and on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj. twitter.com/cspanwj. let us talk about what has happened over the past couple of months. shownacturing jobs have sai some growth. guest: of a lot of manufacturing has done well. we have seen a huge rebound. 250,000 manufacturing jobs created over the last 15 months. manufacturing has created about two-thirds of the gdp growth advance that we have seen since the recession began.
productivitys high. this is actually the biggest winning streak we have seen in manufacturing since the 1990's, with one of the best outlooks we have had in the last 40 years. that said, we have also lost all lot of ground in the last decade and are not where we need to be, in terms of capacity utilization, how busy our factories are, industrial production, and certainly, employment. we lost five and a half million manufacturing jobs. we have gained 250,000 back, but we have a long way to go to get back to a really healthy manufacturing base. host: what do you see as the role of science and education? many companies are looking to foreigners to get the skills that they need. guest: there is some truth to that. up and down the jobs scale at
manufacturing firms, there is a difficulty recruiting young peopleo get involved on the factory floor, technical jobs, with research and devopment, and also on the financing and. they have found more lucrative options in wall street or other places. the infrastructure has not been there for young people who want technical training. we have been focused on other pressions in services, financing, health care. i think manufacturing has severed a bit as a result of that. i think it is a good thing to trained scientists and engineers. i think it is also a good thing to train technical workers on the factory floor. i think that we would see benefits from that down the road. again, we are playing catch-up compared to other industrialized countries with
respect to that. host: taking a look at some graphics about production. you can see that number tanking down, but it has shown signs of life in recent months. up 158,000 jobs from one year ago. donald, democratic line. st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. i think the government is responsible for the auto workers, or keeping their job. other countries, the government helps companies come up with new technology and other things.
we are the only country where we are always crying about what the government does for gm, chrysler. the government is doing it for gm, chrysler, and the people. guest: you are exactly right. we have an aversion to any sort of government intervention in the manufacturing sector. it does not mean the government will be running a factory. that is the lasthing we want to do. if you look at successful manufacturing countries, they do provide support for both business and labor, in making them more competiti, and they do it in a coue of ways. they provide help for reseah and development. they provide help in emergencies. they help with skills and training. there is a lot of collaboration.
they also provi a level playing field for the manufacturing sectors. as a result, a cntry like german where wages are $40 an hour, compared to $23 in the u.s., is highly competitive they have more of their manufacturing sector in the gdp. i am not saying we need to be germany, but we can draw from those examples and have a strong manufacturing sector. host: next phone call from virginia. caller: i think there would be a huge market for good, small, quality and appliances. a new toaster one every tw every two years because the components do not last. guest: it is a good point.
what we are seeing -- and this gives me hope -- a made in america premium. manufacturers are finding their goods that are made in america are selling 30% better than the imported version. i do not know if you caught this, or if others did, but on abc news, at the end of february, they spend a family -- they spent some time with a family in dallas, texas. they replaced every item in their home with made in america products, and they were able to replace everything except their television and cell phone. a lot o these were great products at a comparable price. it is just hard to find at the big box stores. they have this supply philosophy where they want to get this stuff from china. made in america is back,
growing, and i think it will be catching on in the months to come. host: let us listen to some comments the president made at carnegie-mellon university in pittsburgh, talking abo the government and private-sector coming together. >> if we want a robust, growing economy, we need a robust, growing manufacturing sector. that is why we called the auto sector, if they were willing to adapt, we would stand by them. today, they are profitable, creating jobs, and everything taxpayers ahead of schedule. -- and repaying taxpayers ahead of schedule. that is why we have launched a partnership to retrain workers with new skills. that is why we have invested in wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries. we have not run out of stuff to
make. we just have to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector so that it leads the world, the way it always has, from paper to steal, to new cars, to new products we have not even dreamed up yet. that is how we are going to spark new industry. that is how we are going to grow the middle class and securing oueconomic ldership. host: our guest is scott paul, executive director for alliance for american manufacturing. carl, democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. my main concern, not just the manufacturing sector, most potential employers refuse to
employ somebody with bad credit. the economy is bad. of course, they are going to find difficulty paying their bills. everything is being challenged through the credit bureau. each and every employer that i have gone to since june 2009, i have gone too numerous have gone too numerous interviews -- to numerous interviews. even the headhunters are requiring a credit check. guest: it is a problem that a
lot of americans are having right now. we still have 9.1% unemployment, when you add in people who have given up. when you add that back in, it inches up to 16%. there are a lot of people in your position. we found, in this economy, the longer you go without a job, the harder it is to get back into the job market. it is a shame because there is a lot of wasted human potential, a skill set that we can bring to places, like the factory floor. we need to harness that. that is one of the great things about manufacturing. it is a good job, pays a good wage, and provides more bang for the but for the economy. it spins off other jobs and there is more cash in the workers and to spend. that is why i am so confident
in the manufacturing sector. ho: a viewer writres -- guest: absolutely. the u.s. is dependent on other countries for some of our key defense needs. the department of defense, when you go down its supply chain, they do not know the source of where things are coming from. it is a frightening prospect. we build our fst manufacturing strategy in this country in 1791. alexander hamilton created this and did a report to congress on manufacturing in the united states. the impetus for it was he did not want us to depend on the french for our naval vessels. so we put in place a set of policies to grow manufacturing, have an industrial base, and that is a policy we maintained until the end of world war ii.
until then, we did not have any rivals, and we were able to coast for a couple of decades, but then germany, japan got competitive. we still did not have a sttegy. mexico and china came on line. we still did not have a strategy. now we are more dependent than we should be on others for our national defense needs and other needs as well. host: surely, in abilene, texas. good morning. caller: i do not think anything can be solved in this country, as far as manufacturing is concerned, unless we revisit these trade agreements. we have passive best of the -- massive deficits with all of these countries and now we are considering more. columbia would not be a great place to open up a free-trade
agreement because they have nothing to sell except for drugs and coffee. every time we do this, we homogenize the american worker little or -- a little lower. as big multinational companies will go anywhere to get cheaper labor. unless we visited ery one of the trade agreements, i think this country is lost. guest: you make a good point. i am for trade. i am for a real treat -- a real version of free trade. that is not what we have. a lot of these trade agreements have let us down. naphtha promised to be a jobs naphtha promised to be a jobs boom, and -- nafta promised to be a jobs boom, stop the drug problem. in fact, it has created a race to the bottom that even mexico
is not winning. they are seeing manufacturing jobs move to china. we need a different model of how we do this. with regard to the pending free- trade agreement, even if they are passed, and even under the rosiest scenarios of job creation, it will be mild, compared to what we need to do against china. we run monthly trade deficits of about $20 billion. since 2001, that has added up to 2.4 million good paying job we have lost we are now deep in debt to china because of this. it is not because china can make things better than we can. it is because they manipulate their currency, they have industrial subdies, they have in intellectual property protections which are lax, and we do not stand up and say enough. that is why the obama administration and congress needs to provide a level playing
field for our manufacturers, workers. but welso have to reevaluate the way we do these free trade agreements. host: here is some news related to what she was asking about. columbia trade deal loses key support. the white housend republican leaders say they have the votes in each chamber needed to pass trade deals with south korea, columbia, and panama. guest: free-trade agreements are controversial. they generally have provided
democrats more so than republicans. my concern is are fused on the wrong thing. we saw last year, china's currency legislation passed. it was a great bill that the republican from pennsylvania, tim ryan, along with congressman levin, introduced on the house side. it passed overwhelmingly. one of the few bipartisan acts that we saw towards the end of thcongress. i say, bring that bill up. you know it has a lot of republican support. it would do more than all of this free trade agreements combined to help the manufacturing sector in our country, and it would give a level playing field to our workers and businesses who want to compete with china. hugely beneficial impact on the trade deficit, jobs, gross domestic product, and it does
not cost a dime to do. if your listeners are out there, call your congressman and tell them to pass china currency legislation. host: next phone call. hugh. caller: in order to stimulate the economy, michelle bachmann the economy, michelle bachmann says that the government needs to reevaluate the minimum wage. i was wondering what your thoughts are on that? guest: that is a terribly misguided policy. the u.s. will never win, n should we want to win, a race to the bottom. we will not get our sndards down to china, vietnam, or other developing countries, where we are compeng in labor-intensive manufacturing. that is not a race we want to win. we need t invest in our workers. we need to give them better skills.
america's work force is one of america's greatest and bandages. all they needed the opportunity to run least that. we can be very competitive in manufacturing. manufacturing wages in germany are $48 per hour. in the u.s., up $32 an hour. and you figure in the benefits and other things like that. manufacturing in germany is very competitive. if they have a balanced trade relations ~. they have a large percentage four of their economy in manufacturing. we do not. -- they have a balanced trade with signchina. host: keepitmadeinusa is
his twitter handle. how long ago did you work with senator dick lugar? >> that was 1987. i am an indiana native. i have great admiration for the senator. if t advantage of this job is that it is not partisa the message appeals to a broad swap of people. i speak to manufacturg groups. i speak to the labor unions. i do a lot of that. i give them the same message. the response i always get is very positive. host: carl joins us on guport, mississippi, republican line. go-ahead. caller: you talk about making making jobs for industry.
a lot of people work outside maintaining a t of stock that is built and are pushed to the side of the time. they just want to build -- everybody wants to steady build something new instead of maintaining what ty have. some of the problem with our country is we have come up with a design like harley davidson and then we sell the design to other countries like deadpan and en they are mass produced, which forces other companies out of business. every time our country gets a handle on bringing the economy back on its feet, we keep pushing the prices of gas up to recoup the money instead of letting it heal itself. guest: you brought up a great point. there are lot of economists who
believe this. i'd think they are completely wrong. a growing body of academics big that they are wrong as well. the article that has won a harvard business review article in the year a year-and- a-half ago was written by two professors there. they looked at the idea of disconnecting innovation from production and how inefficient it was and the problems that caused the u.s. they made t argument that we not only have to invest in research and development and innovation, but we need to make a stuffed in the united states as well and to support that innovation base. you want innovation and production to be close together. it does not make sense to outsource. i hope we will see philosophies among academics and on wall street saying that we need to bring back innovation and that we need immigration --
innovation and production close to each other. it makes sense to manufacture the ipods in the united states. host: people would pay less for -- then another person says walmart possibly would make it better. guest: i am not where i say you have to buy this or that or the other. i think there are a lot of incentive to american-made products. quality is big. you may purchase an item at wal- mart for $2 which breaks in six months. the american version is $8 somewhere else and it lasts five years. it would make sense to buy the american product because it's a
long-term investment. long-term investment. we have a lot of short- termism in this country demonstrated by consumers and by wall street. but i do think even a big box stores like wal-mart understand this made in america premium. it is worth something. people want to be able to buy local products. th want to build to buy american-made products and if they at least want to have the choice and opportunity to do that. they get sent out a lot unfortunately. i want to giveonsumers a choice and let them decide. i don't think there's a store is right now. i'd think the big box stores are determining the supply chains. ho: now, cindy and from the erie, pennsylvania, on the democrat line. northwestern pennsylvania. caller: manufacturing has taken a downturn in this economy. in eerie we have always been very strong in manufacturing. we face all the talent is that he spoke about with a lot of
jobs being shipped overseas -- we face all of the challenges. with the health care costs adversely affecting american manufacturing, when are the manufacturer is going to help themselves by discussing single payer? guest: that's a good question. i will say not to hold your breath for a lot of fortune 500 companies to talk about a single payer health care system. even though when you look around the world you see a lot of countries we compete with having national health care systems and they have a very help the manufacturing sector as well. i don't know that there is a precise correlation, but i do repaira way to bring down lacrosse's for manufacturers. we're one of the only countries where manufacturers have to bear their own health care costs for
their employees. they are competing not only against foreign competition, but they are competing against firms in the u.s. who may not have health care benefits as generous as they do. it makes some sense to look past a system where the costs are more broadly shared by the that one of the things we have to address and one of the things we saw in the automobile industry is that health care costs or bankrupting the companies. we do still need to make a lot of progress on that. host: huntington, new york state. canny on the republican line. -- kenny. caller: anyway. a lot of people old like myself are under-employed with a part- time job. time job. i know somebody who recently had a job and got laid off for a
time and then go back on unemployment. so it is like when we go to the store we have to really watch what we buy. but mostly going to purchase with what i have a time, so you have to budget yourself. host: sounds like you are most likely going to produce what is inexpensive instead of having the luxury of worrying where something was made or how long it might last. caller: that's very true. caller: that's very true. that is very true, because seeing that i have a st