SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in response to the Senator from Kentucky, I would like to say that he is new to the Senate. I do not question his sincerity when it comes to the enforcement of our Constitution. I share his feelings about the responsibility of Congress under that Constitution to declare war. I have held previous Presidents of both political parties to that standard and believe that this President should be held to that standard as well. I may regret some of his characterizations of our President, but I will not go into that at this moment. I will say the following:

Let's make the record clear about how we got into this situation and why we got into the situation, which the President said the other night. This was not a matter of waiting until Congress came back from its vacation; it was a matter of innocent people being killed in Libya.

It was no mistake what Qadhafi was going to do. He said pointblank: I am going to Benghazi. I am going house to house and room to room and kill people, my own people.

It should not come as any surprise because he has a history of that, not only killing his own people but killing those innocent passengers on Pan Am 103. He is a ruthless, bloody dictator, so much so that the Arab League of Nations broke precedent and called for Libya to be suspended as long as Qadhafi was in charge. His own Arab League of Nations suspended him. They then turned to the United Nations and said: Please stop him from killing his own people.

Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. When I finish my statement, I will be happy to yield.

They then said: Go to the United Nations and create the authority, an international authority to stop him. This was done.

It was in the midst of all this that the President was leaving for South America and Congress was leaving for a 1-week scheduled recess. That is a fact. On the Friday, which is now about 10 days ago, before we left, the President had a conference call and invited all members of the leadership, Democratic and Republican, House and Senate, to listen to a briefing from the Situation Room about the exact military situation we faced and invited questions and comments from all Members of Congress who were part of that conversation. I was part of that conversation. I listened to it carefully. It became clear to me that the President had laid down certain conditions to U.S. involvement.

No. 1, the President said: No American ground troops.

No. 2, the President said: This is a war of short duration as far as the United States is concerned; in his words, ``days,'' not weeks, and he went on to say that the United States would use its unique capabilities to help those allies of the United States who wanted to stop Qadhafi's killing. He used the phrase ``unique capabilities'' several times in that conversation.

I wasn't sure what he meant. I learned later in press reports. The United States used technology on the initial air invasion for the no-fly zone that stopped the radar of the Libyans so our planes and the planes of our allies could travel across Libya and stop their planes and tanks without danger. So that was the commitment made by the President.

What does the law say? The law passed by Congress over the veto of President Nixon, the War Powers Act, requires the President to notify Congress when he initiates this form of military action. Did he do it? He did. As a matter of fact, the President submitted a notification to Congress within 48 hours of the initiation of these operations consistent with the War Powers Resolution. So to argue that the President is circumventing Congress is not factual. He did exactly what the law requires him to do.

If this President were planning a full-scale invasion such as we had in Kuwait under President George Herbert Walker Bush, with a long period of buildup--I insisted, and President Bush complied with, a request to come to Congress for authorization. He did it. Credit should be given to President Bush. But it was a different circumstance.

What the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting is that President Obama should have waited until he could summon Congress back into session--how many days would that be--waited until Congress deliberated and voted before he took emergency action to protect our allies' planes and our planes, to stop Qadhafi from killing people. I am all in favor of constitutional powers, but I believe there are moments when a President has to have the authority to exercise that kind of military decision when he believes it is in the best interest of the United States.

I don't think it is hypocritical. I am sorry that word was used. I think what the President has said is that he is trying to redefine the role of the United States in the world, standing up for our values, fighting for peace, trying to stop the carnage in Libya, without committing tens of thousands of American soldiers for years at a time. I happen to think that is a worthy foreign policy goal. I also believe the ball is now in the court of Congress. It now is up to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee to decide if they want to have hearings on this Libyan action, whether or not we take action in response to the President's filing this notice under the War Powers Resolution. But to argue that the President has just ignored the Constitution or ignored the law ignores the facts. The President filed the notification required by law under the War Powers Act. Now the ball is in our court. Are we going to move forward? Will we have hearings? Will we take action? It is up to Congress now. I sincerely believe there should be hearings. I hope this matter is over before we even have the requirement or necessity to have such hearings. But at this moment in time, as I see it, the President has complied with the law.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question.

Mr. PAUL. On December 7, 1941, we were attacked and the President declared war. We had a session within 24 hours. On 9/11, we were attacked by people coming from Afghanistan. We met within 3 days and had a use of force authorization. I think there is a problem with sort of saying it is OK to declare that the President can go to war after he has already done it.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the complaints from many people on the different wars in which we are involved, President Bush did come to ask for the authorization of force. We have had 2 to 3 weeks of this issue. They had time to go to the U.N. They had time to go to the Arab League. They had time to go to everyone. I think the Senator from Illinois should be as insulted as I am that they never came to Congress.

The War Powers Act has specific criteria that allows the President to use force: a declared war, when he has use of authorization, or when we are in imminent danger. Which one of those meets the War Powers Act with regard to Libya?

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is correct in his statement that not only President George Herbert Walker Bush but also President George W. Bush came to Congress and broke precedent. That had not happened in Korea or Vietnam. We went back to what I considered to be the constitutional standard. Congress deliberated on those wars and voted.

I will tell the Senator from Kentucky, since he is my friend and is new here, it is one of the most compelling votes he will ever cast. I hope he never faces it. But if he does, it is one of the votes that will keep him up at night trying to think what is best for America and what is best for the young men and women who may lose their lives in the process.

In fairness to both Presidents Bush, they did come to Congress. The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq went on for weeks if not months. The same thing was true for Afghanistan. Remember, in the situation with Afghanistan, after 9/11, we were here in this building when it happened. We knew what 9/11 was about, and we responded accordingly.

The Senator from Kentucky has the right to express his point of view and debate it on the Senate floor and the right to pursue the War Powers Act which gives Congress the authority for hearings and a decision. What I disagree with the Senator from Kentucky about is the characterization that the President did not follow the law. He did notify Congress. The circumstances moved so quickly with human life hanging in the balance, the President made that decision and now stands with the American people making a judgment as to whether it was the proper decision to make.

At this point I would like to yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas for the purpose of debate only, with the understanding that when he has completed his debate, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. DURBIN. Fine.

Mr. PAUL. I know the word ``hypocritical'' is a strong word. I don't use it lightly. But the words we are using in this resolution that we will get a chance to vote on are the words from the President. The President said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.

How does the Senator from Illinois square that with his actions?

Mr. DURBIN. That was the question raised by the President in his address to the American people the night before last, as to whether it is in the best interest of the United States to step forward with our unique capability--in this case, our air power, as well as our technology--to protect innocent human life. There are some who will argue that he should not have done it, and we should have just waited to see if Qadhafi would keep his word to kill all these innocent people. I think the President made the right, humane decision.

Had we made a fraction of that decision in Rwanda, it might have spared tens of thousands of people from dying. The same thing might have happened in Darfur. I think the Presidents who were in power at that time both personally regret the fact that we didn't do anything as those genocides unfolded. President Obama did not want that to occur on his watch and thought the United States, in a limited military commitment, could help spare innocent people in Libya from this carnage.

We can debate as to whether that is appropriate, and I am sure we will. I know the Senator from Kentucky has his own beliefs on the subject.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran, be recognized to speak in debate only and that following his remarks, I suggest the absence of a quorum and the clerk will call the roll.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source