Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I want to associate myself with her remarks and her colloquy with Senator Kerry, because I believe we are making a clear record in the debate of this important resolution relative to America's role in Libya. The pointed questions asked by Senator Boxer and the responses given by Senator Kerry are consistent with what he has described to me as the legislative intent of this resolution.

I am a newcomer to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is my first year serving. I sit way at the end of the table, even though I have been around Congress for a number of years. I want to salute the chairman of that committee. I do not think the American people can appreciate the hard work Senator Kerry puts into that committee and to his responsibilities with this administration. It is an indication of the trust which he has earned with the President and the Secretary of State that he has been called on often to visit important places around the world at very critical moments to represent the United States and the Congress.

The trip he made to Pakistan a few weeks ago could not have come at a more important moment. He returned to not only brief the administration but also his colleagues in Congress. I know he will be taking other journeys in his capacity with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to tell him how much I appreciate it, as all Americans should. I also want to tell him how much I appreciate the effort he put into this resolution relative to our assistance to NATO in Libya.

If you look back in terms of this debate on the floor of the Senate, you realize it goes back to the origins of America, when the Founding Fathers sat down and defined what this Congress had the power to do. I do not think they wasted words. Those who will look at article I, section 8, clause 11, will see that Congress is given the authority to declare war. It is one of the most awesome responsibilities given to Congress. But it was clearly given to Congress so, the Founding Fathers said, we would represent the feelings of the people of America, the people whose children, sons and daughters, and husband and wives would be called into combat, and we would make the decision: Will this America go to war?

The President as Commander in Chief certainly has authority to defend America and Americans, but when it came to involvement in war, Congress was given the constitutional responsibility.

Throughout history, many Presidents have honored that clause and have come to Congress asking for the authority to proceed to war. Probably one of the most notable and historic was Franklin Roosevelt who came the day after Pearl Harbor, in December of 1941, hobbled up to the rostrum in the House of Representatives, and declared ``a day that would live in infamy'' and asked for a declaration of war against those who had attacked the United States. It was a clear exercise of constitutional responsibility given to Congress and exercised accordingly.

After that, though, there was a long period of uncertainty. The so-called Korean conflict, where two of my brothers served in the U.S. Navy, was characterized as a ``police action,'' some action that was inspired and authorized by the United Nations. Many men and women died in that conflict, but it was not an official declaration of war that led to it.

Then came the war in Vietnam, where Senator Kerry served with such distinction in the U.S. Navy, literally risking his life in a conflict where there was no official declaration of war. The controversy that came out of that Vietnam conflict led to proposed legislation called the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act set out to describe in statute what we believe the Constitution said in its clear language. That is, at some point, a President must step forward and say to Congress: We need your authority to go forward with this conflict involving hostilities.

There have been debates back and forth about whether it was to be applied. Some Presidents came here asking for authority. President George Herbert Walker Bush did before our invasion of Kuwait. George W. Bush did before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But there were exceptions also--in Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, and other places.

This has been an ongoing battle between the White House--or executive branch--and the Congress about when the President, as Commander in Chief, has to come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. It has become even more complicated because war has changed. There was a time in history when the onset of war was very visible: the marching of troops, the weighing of anchors, planes lifting off in flight. You knew a war was underway. Now we live in a different age--an age of no-fly zones, embargoes, predatory drones, and cyber security. The definition of war is one we need to look at in this new context.

I have felt from the beginning that President Obama handled this right in Libya. Senator Kerry and others, like me, were privy to early conversations before the decision was made, when the President briefed us on what we were setting out to do--stop Qadhafi from massacring his own individual citizens in that country, particularly as he said he will march into Benghazi and kill the people of Libya like rats in the street. President Obama said to us: We cannot let this massacre of innocent people continue.

But the President went on to say that the United States will play a specific and limited role in this conflict. First, we come to it at the invitation of the Arab League. This is significant because before the United States gets involved in anything of a military nature in a Muslim nation, we are looking for at least an invitation or cooperation from Arab nations. In this case, the President had it. Then, he went on to say we will use the NATO alliance in Europe to initiate this action, and we will support this. We may play a larger role in the beginning of the conflict but a more diminished role as it continues.

The President went on to say there will be no ground troops from the United States committed to Libya. That was the early briefing. Of course, it has gone on for several months and the question is where it goes from here.

I salute Senator Kerry. He has used the War Powers Act to authorize what the President is doing in Libya. That way there is no question about the authority of the President to go forward, and he has done more. Chairman Kerry has reached out, in a bipartisan fashion, to bring in Senators McCain, Kyl, Graham, and others from the Republican side of the aisle, in a bipartisan approval of what we are doing in Libya.

I think this is consistent with the Constitution, with the War Powers Act, and with the finest traditions of the Senate, where we can fight like cats and dogs night and day on many things, but when it comes to the use of our military and our commitment to the men and women in uniform, we do our very best to come together in a bipartisan fashion.

What Senator Kerry offers is consistent with that. The answers he gave earlier to the questions by Senator Boxer satisfy my concerns that there is no authorization in this resolution for the use of ground troops, other than in the specific example given by Senator Kerry when it comes to rescuing government officials and military personnel of the NATO alliance. He goes
on to say, in answers to Senator Boxer, that if this President wanted to use ground troops, it would take an additional passage of legislation authorizing the President to do so.

For the record, President Obama has been clear in his statements. On March 18, he said:

I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.

On March 28, he reiterated that point in an address to America when he said:

I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Finally, the administration's communication with Congress last week summarizes the President's clear public statements against the deployment of U.S. ground troops. That report, entitled ``United States Activities in Libya,'' reads, in part:

As President Obama has clearly stated, our contributions do not include deploying U.S. military ground forces into Libya, with the exception of personnel recovery operations as may be necessary.

I will close by thanking Senator Kerry for those direct answers to Senator Boxer, and I will make one last point before I yield the floor. First, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, who has led the way. I was happy to partner with him in this effort to use the War Powers Act for approval of this action.

There are rumors afloat on Capitol Hill that some on the other side of the Rotunda are going to try to stop funding for our military operations that are supportive of the NATO alliance in Libya. I sincerely hope that does not occur. If that occurs, it will, unfortunately, give hope to this dictator, Qadhafi, that he can somehow survive. It will, unfortunately, undermine the efforts of innocent people in Libya from risking their lives to end his administration and bring a new day to that poor, beleaguered country.

Finally, it would strike a blow at the NATO alliance, which is critically important for the security of America, Europe, and the world. So I hope the House will follow suit, in a bipartisan fashion, and follow this resolution Senator Kerry has authored and brought others together on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source