the of the states take the recommendation of the most forward leaning and impact full military leader in afghanistan when he calls for the complement of surge troops to be a round out their maximum level of little while longer, not for 10 years or 20 years' worth of nation building. but the logical and intermediate next step goal of making sure the security forces are trained in volume and quality so that it can reasonably take up more of the charge and the challenge of security and afghanistan. notwithstanding that recommendation and compared to the political calendar, it strikes me as something that is a sense of with a droll, retrenchment, and decline. the list goes on. we have the president of the united states saying to syria

-- is an enabler to terrorism, send an ambassador back to damascus, refuses to address in any moral clarity, all of those things support that statement. >> america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. what is the moral clarity? >> that we and other developed nations to support these principles and more. human rights. free and fair elections, the free flow of information. the ability for people to express themselves freely and associate freely. those are values and principles that we can speak to a moral clarity because they are our boundaries. when people oppressed them in tyrannical ways, we should speak to that.

we have more clarity to do that. >> who have dealt with the tension between the -- >> they are universal values as well. >> the security issues that arise, what do you do about a state? you mentioned radical islam early on. would you do to oppose those that oppose the united states and its interests? they have become what they believe they should be and pose a threat to the united states. >> which state would you highlight as an example of that? >> you are speaking about a list of principles by which you would govern, and the tension between freedom and security is a

perennial one. at what point do you draw the line. >> a cut you meant a state that had a democratic resolved. the categories i put forward was this. there at the doorstep of freedom. we have these long-standing monarchies. they have been somewhat or partially friendly to the invited states, but you can see the handwriting on the law -- on the wall. and maybe a year, 10 years, 20 or 30. there is a continuum to where they are and more shared power with the people. we use the leverage that we have economically, socially, and beyond to move them as constructively as possible to a better place of shared power with the people. live states that are directly

threatening to the united states that included syria, iran, and hopefully not yet yemen. the need to be dealt with -- there recognize their great ally that shares the valley. we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we confront in the embrace the challenges and opportunities of the region. these essence of your question is where is the dividing line between democracy and tyranny have you can't flip a switch overnight and to move his starkly to radical governments to democracy. but you can use what is available to try to pressure them, encourage them, inspire them to move down the continuum towards democracy. it doesn't happen overnight. look at serbia, look at kosovo

and bosnia. these are 10, 20, multi decade projects. they take a sustained and persistent commitment in the country. reagan did great work in romania, poland, afghanistan part one. not but always using explicit military intervention, but over time, it changed the country. this starts with a president that is going to lend moral clarity, strength of vision, strength of values so that the individuals that are dreamers in those countries hear the voices and no aspiration only had to directionally that we stand with them. >> you've made a very him -- very interesting historical linkage early on.

i am taking it as three examples of equivalent triumphs. defined the war on terror and what you would do in the next phase of that. >> this is not a known beginning and end to this yet. we are accustomed to a mind-set where people might see a clear beginning and a clear and to the challenge and the need. it is likely going to be transnational. it is going to be multi year if not multi decade. it will be episodic. the threat will take different forms in different places at different times. it will be asymmetrical and it will be different as we

although events of the historic examples that you have cited. we need to ready ourselves for that future. there is only one person that can educate and raise awareness and remind the american people about the importance of this cause and the environment and risks making sure that we remain vigilant. the people that killed 3000 of our citizens of the timber a eleventh 2001 still exists. their mindset still exists. and as soon as they have the are opportunity to kill not 3000 and but 30 million or 300 million, they will try. this may not be just about an orderly and reasonable and successful drawdown of the troops in afghanistan. this is going to be about having the determination to see this

threat, call it by name, identify it wherever it exists and defeat it before it manifest itself in a way that is threatening to the security interests of the united states. that will require persistence, diligence over a long and episodic. of time. does not the direction this president is headed in my view. that is not the direction that a good chunk of even the republican party seems to be headed. i take sharp issue with both. >> please state your name and affiliation, start here. >> think you for your remarks. i wonder if you can shed some light on your support for the idea, who are the change agents.

if he is no longer in power, would be acceptable to washington is the individual in whatever capital may be. or someone that can be something else. how'd you have visibility on a change agent that nobody in the country really has right now. the premise is how to guarantee something. the answer is that there is ultimately no guarantee in these uncertain situations. when you are navigating into certain situations. you have to make sure that your compass is set to true north. make sure you have a president that annunciated in articulate forcefully and repeatedly what the values and interests really are.

what comes after hitler? what can happen after that? he was awful and needed to go. take libya as one example of many. each of these cultures are different with different histories. they have to be done strategically, but ultimately won at a time. at least a significant chunk are western educated in the seemed to generally desire freedom or democracy. it will be in competition between the former and the latter? yes. assuming that he is going ago to try to maximize the odds of the

folks that are favorable to our values prevail? yes. is there an absolute guarantee? it does not work like that. it does not mean that we retreat and ducked under the table. this does not mean that we invade it militarily every country. there are a lot of levers that you can pull that will influence the course of these countries. can we guarantee the outcome? ho. but once the president of the united states says that he has got to go, you can't let him from his nose at the president of the united states and the free world. leaving him there and definitely is not an option. if someone would argue that we

don't have a vital interest before, we have one now. one of his main motivation is going to be retaliation, and guess who is going to be against. letting him linder indefinitely while the president brings his hands about what to do that is not a good idea. he needs to go. >> as you look back, you think your foreign policy approach would have more in common with george h. w. bush or george w. bush? >> collected believe i would have my own foreign policy, and that it would reflect on the best of the successes of our country. and there are positive examples in both of those administrations from challenges as well obviously.

i don't think it is one or the other. a thick there are strong and positive elements in both. these are complex issues and complex parts of the world have lots of nuance. to suggest a doctrine for the region that is cut her is under utilization of our ability, capability, and are thoughtfulness. there are elements of both. right're not in a primary now, are you? >> just to get away from the middle east for a moment, whatever policy toward north korea be different from what ever the policy is today? [laughter] >> north korea is one of the

most concerning challenges that we face in the foreign-policy arena. i think that north korea will most likely best respond to a multifaceted approach, prominent when an important rule ha for china in that discussion. it is not the only lever, but it is a mature and clever. the have control over whether china in search of more influence in that discussion, but we need them to be involved. we don't advocate, the fur, or 72 cut. you're dealing with a leadership structure that is fragile, uncertain, potentially erratic, her unpredictable. again, when you're facing these difficult situations, we have to give back to articulating what

we stand for and what we believe. first of all, articulate it, and second of all, are there ways to influence in. the goal is not poland or afghanistan, but to the extent we have levers, whether the implicit or a necklace to try to change north korea in internally, that is a good option for us. we are going to be helped in the region. we have people that are particularly connected to north korea. but that the transition in south korea. great success has been made there, a different approach. dallas in just the reagan gave a seat in a good blueprint about how to influence events in such a country they you're worried about. >>-with fox news.

when you talk about gadhafi must go, it is easy to say, he has proven to be much more difficult. how would you deal with this with the more specificity of how you would get him to go. and boots on the ground, special operations forces, more of the same? the nisei and hard to do if he decides he doesn't want to go. >> be consistent and clear about your expectations. egypt we have an 82-year-old that if it is a revolution or heart attack or something, was not long for that position. what was the plan between a 30 + year decatur and chaos.

there wasn't one. he thought it was this kid. that wasn't going to work either. as it unfolds in a number of the moment towards the end, we have me,ident biden -- excuse vice president biden say mubark ak wasn't a dictator. the muslim brotherhood is a largely secular organization. really? don't worry, the situation in egypt is stable. as mentioned in my remarks, no, it wasn't. how was the colorful as we reach out to the people on this tree. helen davis-some event in in egypt, or any of -- in europe.

gibbs says mubarak must now go. and we mean yesterday. and then someone goes and whispers to a designee. in the early days, hours, and weeks of this event, we had a very confused and uncoordinated and unclear and hesitant administration. clearly, he was a dictator not long for his position. leakey be in the business before chaos of trying to have a capacity in place or a better way forward for egypt. that took care of itself and terms of the events on the ground. we better be helping out with others that are in the business of trying to build democratic

capacity in egypt. will maximize the likelihood that that will actually happen. to this day, and this administration until recently would not utter the words that he needs to go and he needs to kill him. they implied that there was still high and for him to renew himself. the mean that we're going to use military force in syria? not necessarily. are there other things that we can do to try to effectuate change. this administration is reluctant to do it, doesn't see it, doesn't want to do it. doesn't leave how he has the leadership role in in. and this is not afghanistan, this is a relatively simple place of graphically. i'm not suggesting any boots on the ground, but the united

states and its allies would have to go, he would be gone. and the ku said that essentially, you have a certain number of days in the year affairs in order. you can go the easy way or the hard way. ronald reagan tried to kill him in the 80's. he is a terrorist and now he is an indicted war criminal. >> would you have tried to follow the war powers resolution in libya military action? ' reserve the prerogative and the war powers the close not apply. in the case that it might and out of courtesy, i would have more fully consulted with them because the case could have been presented successfully as a courtesy to congress, not necessarily as a legal

obligation. i think he had a couple of leaders over for sandwiches. i think a strong case can be made on the merits that what we did in libya was the correct course. on march 7, they threatened a no-fly zone and he was on the ropes. the rebels had the momentum. he was openly talking about leaving voluntarily. hadley seized the moment, we could have got him out without much fanfare. the president did for the better part of the month waiting for the united nations, regrouping, regaining momentum and taking back more than half of the country. and give us a more complicated

situation than we now have. as it relates to the case that should have been made as a courtesy in a gesture of respect, i would have done that. i did not say that it was required by the war powers act. >> we have a question from penn state. he said iraq was a shining example of the middle east. a number of experts thought that the majority was going to eliminate the minority are dropping them out of the country or worse. for whom is a rack a shining example? >> for those that like democracy, more open societies, increasing appreciation for democratic institutions and principles. is a racket guaranteed to be a shining example forever? though. is it better than it was in recent years?

absolutely. this is on a continuing and got a moment in time. if you look around the middle east with the exception of israel and turkey in you're trying to rank haitians that are next on the progress meter in terms of movement towards the like, you will put iraq moving in the right direction. in light of other challenges are within iraq, we don't know the answer to that. in this moment of time, it can and has been made in a difficult region with the complex and seemingly insurmountable history. absolutely. >> i want to ask a question that john asked you about states that

democratically choose leaders who are opposed to american values in the conundrum. i assume that one of the reasons the obama hesitation -- edit illustration hesitated, they thought it could be more anti- american and anti-israel. do you have a reason to think that that is wrong? or if it is correct, are you saying that the united states should be prepared to pay that strategic prize for the important moral gain of having a more democratic are you asserting that the elections in egypt were legitimate? >> it is broadly anti-american. for reasons having to deal with israel and other things, a democratic collection --

election will bring to power more that are anti-american than the autocratic regimes. it might be a price the united states has to pay in order to bring about a more democratic and middle east. a if you have reason to think that it is not such a price, or is it is a price worth paying? >> you have to look at this over time. we have monarchies, for example, there was hoyle tolerated and supported -- and engaged over many years and many decades. the argument for not pressuring them to much for change is that they have accommodated us with respect to our security interests. it has been oversimplified, but

i've been that is the essence of what you're describing. the next question is, how much longer in the world of social networking, instant media, is that sustainable? if you believe it is not in the intermediate and long-term sustainable, harley best served to least try to move those countries and down the continuing towards a better future so the transition can be orderly, predictable, unlikely successful that have that erupt in a cataclysmic moment of revolution who, the debris and political debris for which is uncertain? as what i tried to describe in the remarks, and i hope you combat. the point wasn't to say to the third group marquise that we're going to demand or otherwise require you to quickly switch.

what i am trying to say if you think about, even in the realm of monarchies, have current middle eastern monarchies of the way to spain for the uk. over a reasonable time, with our friendship, relationship, leverage, and hopefully increasing the share value, then we move them on a continuum? it begins to convince the people of how there is no in an orderly fashion. it decreases the likelihood of a dramatic or catastrophic a moment for which outcome is uncertain. that is what i am trying to describe. keep in mind the failed states and those that have already gone through the revolution.

>> you're not trying to send a message to elizabeth ii? [laughter] watch out. you're with us or against us. i knew we'd get kate middleton in here somehow. >> you imply in your remarks, the answer to one of the more follow up questions that secretary clinton and the president were to slow to embrace in support the reform movement in egypt. what do you make of the argument that we were too quick as a country to abandon our ally of 35 years, and by not having what you just described, the orderly transition to have access opening dramatically and it

could and threaten the state of israel. >> his days were numbered any way you cut them. caught in the revolution, elections, or through human life expectancy expands sometime in the next few years. the question wasn't whether he was going to go, the question was what would happen once he went. it happened war suddenly because of the revolution. when you have 32 years' worth of his reign, featuring things like the 2010 parliamentary elections which are clearly still lend, which are unquestionably stolen by any reasonable and fair minded assessment. the united states of america says nothing and a pretty powerful signal. is that he only thing that led to the problems that mubarak had? no.

was it the straw that broke the camel's back or the mass that got thrown into the kindling? -- match that got thrown into the kindling? maybe. it was 32 years worth of the vial of rights, secret police, still elections. if you do that long enough, and eventually, you're going to have a problem. it is inevitable and undeniable. that same pattern will, for every one of those countries in the region and eventually. thequestion isn't what is outcome, the question is, can we make the outcome more orderly, predictable, stable, secure. more oriented towards the security interests of the united states. i don't accept the premise that one option was to lead him

around. he wasn't around anyway you cut it. >> thank you for a thoughtful morning. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site. with the latest events from the campaign trail. information on whether feed and political reporters.

at least two media partners in the early caucus stage. visit us c-span.org. president obama was an eastern iowa today to talk about manufacturing in the economy. he earlier toward a plan. this is a little more than 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states. ♪ >> thank you. please. you can cut the music. have they see, it is great to see all of you. it is good to be back. at a low, iowa.

i see a couple of friends here. i want to start by recognizing a few folks that are with us today. congressman andrews bailey is here. congressman dave is here. bobby shilling is here. the mayor is here. and the mayor of riverdale is here. the chairwoman of the national association of manufacturers.

the ceo of alcoa is here. the vice-president and general manager is here. and an old friend of mine who actually drove me around a couple of times what i was traveling around iowa, he is here. you know, i know you have seen a lot of politicians around lately. something tells me that you may see a few more before february is over. but i know what, you and i go along way back. and those of you coming over from that side, we go even

longer back. we have some history together. together, we're going to make more history for years to come. that is why i am so glad to be here. 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 has some kind of product in its. think about that. you guys have something to do with every airplane in the world. in fact, it turns out that your order -- you are responsible for the wings on air force one. i want to thank all of you for giving 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, produced about 50 pounds of aluminum today. it was so hard to sell, folks kept on telling charles that it was pointless even to lock up. when the wright brothers, you have heard of them, right? when they needed a lightweight material for their claim, they turned to you. backompany hasn't looked ever since. when president kennedy challenged america to go to the moon, your engineers produced he alloys the help to get a man on the moon.

the afghanistan and iraq, you have helped provide our troops with the armor they need to protect vehicles from a roadside bombs and ied's. when i think about how the lives you have saved, it makes me proud of what you do right here. today, in your new aluminum and lithium alloy is making some of the world's most advanced airplane's lighter and tougher and more cost-effective than ever. you know that times have changed. you see times change. it has grown as america has grown. you also know that sometimes change can be tough. sometimes the old ways of doing things won't cut it anymore.

you were talking about some sheet metal that you guys produce that for a while, you lost market share completely. you got your team together, redesigned it, and you have your market back. that is adapting to change. when change happens, you have a choice. you can either keep on doing what you have in dealing -- is what you have been doing. or you can make the decision that not only you can meet the challenges of the future, but you can set the pace. that is true for this company and it is true for america. for better or for worse, our generation has seen a more than our fair share of economic change. revolutions in technology have changed the way we live and the

way we work. a lot of jobs can now be located anywhere there is an internet connection. and companies have become more efficient. they get by with fewer. some changes have made our lives a lot easier. you can produce products faster and cheaper. for a lot of our friends and neighbors, it has causal lot of pain. today, a high-school diploma no longer guarantees you a good job. i met a couple of the guys here whose fathers had worked at the plant. when the previous generation came to work at the plant, it did not matter what kind of education you had, it just a matter that you were willing to work hard. it is hard to find a job without

a high-school diploma and a lot of cases, hard to find a job without a college diploma. about 1/3 of the manufacturing jobs have vanished. it is not just that they have gone overseas, which is that you guys are better at producing stuff now and then you used to be. and meanwhile, a lot of workers have seen their wages have not keep up with rising costs. i have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues when i ran for this office in the first place. before i came to iowa. i kept on thinking about all of the folks that i would meet in my travels or feeling that squeeze, the costs going up. and in the closing weeks of the

campaign, the bottom fell out of the economy in the middle class got hammered some more. alcoa got hit pretty good, too. we created more than 2 million private-sector jobs over the last few months alone. that is in the last 15 months. [applause] the workers that were fired, most of them have been hired back. that is worth applauding.

[applause] much numbers don't matter if they are still out of work. or if they have a job that doesn't have enough to pay the bills or the mortgage. the market is going to take time. the problems that we develop the not happen overnight and we are not going to solve them overnight either. but we will solve them because after all we have been through, , we are still the united states of america. we have the best innovators and entrepreneurs. we have the best workers in the world. [applause] together, we have got the capacity not only to 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. i believe in an america where families are not just treading water, and there are moving forward on things like clean energy and advanced manufacturing of the sort during right here at this plan. for america lives in a means of investing in things that will help us grow like a world-class education system and the transportation and communication system anywhere in the world for. that is how we're going to make america the best place to create in the middle class john's. we'll be doing the smart things right now to health home middle- class feel more secure. and a big part of that, in the

heart of our future has to be a robust and growing manufacturing sector. if we have got 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. if you want to beat the competition, you have got to innovate. invest in new skills. invest in new products. some of the equipment right behind us, $90 million. think about that. that is what makes you guys competitive. having the best workers and having the best equipment.

that is what we have to do as a country as a whole. we want that stamp that says made in america. but that is what we want. that is why we stood by the auto industry and kept some of the nation's largest automakers from being sold for parts. today, for the first time, the big three are turning a profit and putting steelworkers to work. we also told those companies that they would have to make changes to compete. so we brought people together had set a first new fuel mileage standards in more than 30 years.

it means less harmful pollution have this plan has something to do with it. i was seeing some goods made right here. saves on fuel economy. that means your business improved as well. that is also why i announced last week in new partnership between our top engineering schools, our most innovative manufacturers, and getting a and projects from the drawing board to the factory floor and into the marketplace as quickly as possible. i am proud to announce that alcoa is joinin that partnership. [applause] the idea is to create jobs now and make sure that america stays on the cutting edge of manufacturing for years to come.

we know that strengthening the manufacturing sector requires workers to get the training that they need. every one job, there are four folks looking for work. when it comes to the high-tech field, the opposite is true. businesses are having trouble finding enough skilled workers to fill the openings that they have. we have announced commitments from businesses and universities for 500,000 community college students to earn industry executive credentials for manufacturing jobs that companies across the country are looking to fill. -- here is what we need.

to get to that training program, you have to be prepared and equipped to get that job. you will have to move up in the better positions. these steps won't solve every problem -- there is no silver bullet to reverse a decade of economic challenges. we have had problems for 10 years now. it will not reverse overnight. it will be a better future for our children. i of these are quite the paradoxical times. family members looking for work or just getting by, it is tempting to turn to cynicism and

the devil about the future. that is not the america that i know. that is not the america i see here in communities all across the country today. i see an america where people don't give up, people don't quit. i see companies where reinvention is a part of life. whatever the future may bring. i know you want to be a part of it. that spirit has always been at the heart of the american story. as i was walking in, your team talked about the things are around alcoa, nobody's perfect. but a team can be perfect. none of us individually are perfect, but as a team, america can perfect ourselves.

the squabbling that we see in washington all the time, it will be start thinking together, the business side. what is our market. what is the product we want to produce. how can we cut costs? how can we retrain our workers? problem solving all the time has made you successful. that is what will make america successful. also thinking like the team. instead of turning on each other. i promise you that if we continue to adapt and we were together, to compete around the world, america will come back strongly than before. lee will lead the way and make

[unintelligible] thank you for leading the way. and god bless you and god bless the of the states of america. ♪ loan of of of the month on an hubble a

>> every saturday in july, here historic supreme court arguments on c-span radio. including sexual orientation, gender, and race discrimination. this saturday, single-sex admissions policy in the mississippi unit the for women vs. hogan. nationwide on ex-im satellite radio. and on line on how c-span radio .org. >> senators lieberman and coburn revealed their bipartisan proposal. this is about 20 minutes.

>> good morning, and thanks for being here. there are a lot of issues and to big things that bring us together this morning. the first is that we both love our country and we can see it heading over a fiscal cliff. unless people like him and me come together to get our government does the books back in balance. the next thing is our children and grandchildren. we don't want to leave the country in such an economic mess that they won't have the same opportunity we had a growing up in america.

we are making this proposal that will cut our national debt and preserve medicare for future seniors. there is not much disagreement about the basic fact of america oppose the current fiscal crisis. our national debt is over $14 trillion. and it has grown by more than $1 trillion every year. the drivers are entitlements including medicare. to balancer going the budget again. almost 50 million americans depend on medicare now. about 20 million more people who will go on medicare during the next 10 years. mostly because of retiring baby boomers. each medicare beneficiary, each enrollee well, on the average,

take almost three times more out in medicare benefits than they contribute with payroll taxes and premiums. the number varies by the family structure, but a lot more goes out and you put in. that is why medicare is unsustainable. but that means is, if we do not thing, it will go broke and take our economy down with it. it will be bankrupt by no later than 2024 according to the congressional budget office. as soon as 2016, five years from now, according to some experts. parts b and d will continue to

drain increasingly large and unsustainable amount from our federal treasury, adding to our already enormous debts. these facts leave tom and need to add two painful and unavoidable conclusions. the first is that we cannot balance the budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like medicare. the second is that we cannot save medicare as we know it. we can only save it if we change it. and that is what the medicare reform plan that senator cockburn and i are proposing today will do. it will save over $600 billion in medicare costs over the next decade. it will extend the solvency of medicare for america's seniors by about 30 years, maybe more. and reduce medicare 75-year unfunded liability by about $10 trillion. our plan contains some strong

medicine. but that is what it will take to keep medicare alive. we believe our plan administers the medicine in a fair way. it asks just about everyone to give something to help preserve medicare. but it asked wealthier americans to give more than those who have less. and our plan for the first time in medicare history will offer to protect seniors from paying more than $7,500 out of their pockets for health care in any one year because of a serious mental crisis or long-term illness. here are some other details in brief. we will require higher income americans to pay for more -- to pay more for their share of parts a, b, and d. we simply do not believe that

tax dollars should be used to pay premiums for those who can afford to pay on their own. we will replace medicare's current complicated requirements with a unified deductible of $550 and limit medigap coverage to promote wider use of services. we will increase the eligibility age for medicare over 12 years from 65 to 67 to reflect real life gains and life expectancies. it has increased since 1965 when medicare began from less than 70 to just about 78 years now. and we will make clear, as the eligibility age for medicare increases to month each year, so will the exchange's made under the affordable care act. we will increase the premium to

35% of the program's costs for part b for doctors and for part d for enrollees. when president johnson signed medicare into law in 1965, he made clear that the intention was that the government would pay half of the cost and beneficiaries would pay the other half. we will provide a three-year pay for sgr designed to bring stability to the medicare system. it is in need of a permanent fix and the three years should provide congress with enough time to come up with one. and we will include the fast at, introduced by senator cockburn and senator carver and others, to root out the waste in fraud

-- to root out the waste and fraud in a care. it will provide an easy target for attack for those who understandably want to preserve the status quo. but the status quo only leads to the collapse of medicare and fiscal disaster for our country. we are we passed the point where we can save medicare and cut the debt while keeping all of the interest groups satisfied and all of our constituents happy. if there ever was a time in american history for elected officials to stop thinking about the next election and start thinking about the next generation, it is now. i am pleased to have worked with tom coburn on this. he has a long time record of thinking about the next generation and not the next

election. he has built up tremendous expertise in the area of government financing. if you ask how we came together, after i voted against the ryan plan when it came to a vote in the senate, i said to myself, okay, i have done that, but the alternative now is not to do nothing. if i do nothing more, medicare will go bankrupt. so i set up to try to figure out how we could change medicare to basically preserve it as a government system. i wrote an op-ed in "the washington post." tom read it and called me up and said, i appreciate what your doing and this see if we can work on something together. we came up with this program which i hope will create some bipartisan beachhead, if you will, around which perhaps the gridlock and the breakdown in discussions about dealing with the debt ceiling and our debt

overall can occur. senator coburn. >> let me say what a pleasure it has been to work with bill on this. the real question that we have up in front of us is it does not matter what politician is that this standing up here or what administration, because five years from now we will not have enough money to keep medicare the same. so the time to fix medicare is now and the time to put it on a footing that will truly save $10 trillion, markedly reduce the unfunded liability for it, and markedly increased its life expectancy, i will let you into the details of what we have outlined -- joe has done that --

but i believe what we have to do is act. the longer we wait to act, the more painful it will be for the very people that will most be on these programs. the time now is to preserve that and do it in a way that will cause a better utilization with the same or better outcomes and guaranteeing that they have access to the health care that they require. >> we will take your questions. >> i noticed you are not asking the pharmaceutical companies to share some of the pain by requiring that medicare part d be able to negotiate for drug prices. why not? >> we never have that discussion. it did not come up. that is a contentious issue. a lot of people think that the government can buy cheaper.

i am not sure i believe that. it goes to a broader question here in right now, we are losing half of our medical device industry in this country. we will lose a large portion of our pharmaceutical industry. to say that they cannot have a profit when they are competing for medicare goods, under part d, it is one of the rare instances where cbo got it totally wrong. the fact is that what we wanted to is moved in a bipartisan way. is that an issue that markedly divides democrats and republicans? yes. i know what the projections are. but there are no foundations for it. it does not mean that i am right. it is just my belief. why would we added to make it harder to get a bipartisan solution to pass medicare? >> id is a matter of record that

i voted against part d, in part because i thought that the government should be able to negotiate drug prices. but people want to put them on the table as part of this and have a discussion, that is what the process is all about. >> senator lieberman, this plan has a lot of things that democrats find it painful -- raising retirement age, higher premiums -- democrats have been ok with some kinds of means testing been had you get democrats to time on to a plan like this when republicans other than senator cockburn have not been willing to day one revenues? >> if you had asked me five years or certainly 10 years ago whether i would be supporting a plan like this to support medicare, i cannot imagine that.

but as i said the numbers, it seems that the alternative to this plan is not to continue to go on with the status quo. the status quo leads to the collapse of the entire medicare program it will lead to terrible suffering for people would depend on it. almost 50 million americans work close to over 70 million over the next decade or so -- what i would say to democrats about this is that there is strong medicine. what is on the other side of it is that this program will get very sick if you do not take this medicine. tom and i had some very good discussions. you cannot say that there are tax increases and here. the health care reform act already increased the medicare tax on americans who make over $250,000. but this has some pretty progressive parts to it.

we are asking wealthy americans to pay more than people who do not have as much money. and we do it within the medicare system. i think that is a fair way to go. >> you lay out the different graphics that they will be paying out a pocket. will it not have to change with the way the economy is swinging? what about inflation? >> that is a detail we will have to discuss when we write the legislation. we will have all sorts of questions like this gentleman just asked. what the options? the option is not to do nothing. the option is how do we find a way forward that preserves medicare in a way that we can get it through congress that also preserves the country?

in the long term, what will be our largest cost for the for the government? it will be medicare. it is the biggest. if you do not go after the biggest first and try to make sense of the reforms, nobody will like this plan. we understand that. but nobody wants be medicare advantage and those dependent on it to not have any of it. let's say the 2015 trust fund bellies up? what will happen? do think we will come in with the poll of water to douse the fire and fix the pen? how much more painful willoughby than if we do not make some of these smaller adjustments now? the other thing is that we have to -- look, you will never control the cost of health care in this country until you reconnect some of the purchase of the health care with the individual. it just does not work because

everybody thinks somebody else is paying for their health care. that is not just in medicare. that is everywhere. that is one of the reasons why we do not have control on the costs. one of $3 spent on health care does not do any good for everybody. and that is because there is no market force. we're trying to put a little bit of market forces. we're saying that everybody has to share. clark's it seems to will not have that much left over to shore up long-term financing. >> the total 10-year fixed is about two hundred sunday $5 billion. but that grows each year as we get more and more people in it. the numbers are fairly small for the first three years compared to that total number.

>> senator, did you approve the health care legislation that passed last year? >> yes. how do you reconcile that? the assumption is that, for example, we have been here the age progression, the social security age. if it is repealed, we put in an exception to that in our bill so that -- if the affordable care ad continues, then the age requirement will go up. but if it goes away, then we will my de. >> what about exchanges? where will those folks get insurance? >> we do not change the age so they have the same. it does not change. >> >> when you outlined in your op-ed, there was more than -- there's a cap for paying more

than two hundred $50,000 a year. will that be gone? >> yes. the negotiations we conducted, i think we agreed that we could agree on finding other ways to ask what your people to give more to preserve medicare. we have done it by requiring them to pay 100% of the premium cost for parts b and d. taxpayers pay most of that now. we have a much higher maximum amount out of pocket on part a. i want to stress that, because the two 0.9% medicare tax now covers all income, it is a progressive tax and the health care reform bill made it even more progressive by adding another 9 when 9% for people making more than $250,000.

>> how do you make this a part of the debt ceiling discussions that are going on? or is that the vehicle for this? are reconsidering doing an outside discussion and try to seek passage that way? >> we will send copies of this to the white house and to the bipartisan leadership. in fact, all of the members of the senate. in the midst of the time here, i find that a lot of our colleagues -- i hate to use the were depressed. i don't mean in a clinical way. i am a lawyer, not a psychiatrist. but they are really downcast about the failure of the process as we head toward the debt selling.

perhaps -- the debt ceiling grid perhaps we can offer little hope. there are others that i hope will want to do something somewhere. at a minimum, maybe we have offered some ideas that the vice president's process considers as an alternative agreement. >> last question. >> will medicare be part of the debt ceiling? >> the medicare -- the mandatory spending our entitlement are the biggest drivers of our debt as we go forward. they are already unbelievably high, $14 trillion we will never give back towards balancing our federal budget unless we deal with the entitlements. it is just a question of when. the sooner, the better. if we do not do this when we finally have to and, if it is in

the middle of a financial meltdown, it will be impossibly painful for individual enrollees in medicare and for our country. the sooner you will take the strong medicine, the sooner you will get healthy again. >> medicare has to be fixed. we have to change it. you can live in la la land and say it will stay the same. it will not stay the same. even if congress does not do anything, it lasted the same because we will not be able to borrow the money to afford it. what people do not realize is that there is a debt wall coming in the world. it will hit next july. the world's demand for sovereign debt is $13 trillion and they will find out that there is nine trillion -- $9 trillion.

if we deny get our house in order, everyone will suffer -- if we do not get our house in order, everyone will suffer. we need to start doing what is best for the country. not what is best for any party and you will be in power. it will not matter who is in power when that happens. we will be told what we will do if we want to fund the basic things that we can. it is critical that people like joe and i come together and give up something. he gave up something. i gave up significant things. when you see my $9 trillion program, you will see it appeared we think that walking together and telling the truth of what it is, you have to fix medicare and, if you do not, you cannot fix our country. now is the time to do it and to do it in a bipartisan fashion. >> thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now available c-span is congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including quicker addresses, district maps, and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order it online at c-span.org /shop. in a few moments, the senate foreign relations committee considers whether new the -- applies to the libyan mission. >> on washington journal tomorrow morning, former house

intelligence committee peter hoekstra will take your questions about libya and the war powers act and the situation in afghanistan. we will talk about the economy and trade with former senator byron dorgan. and we will be joined by surgeon general regina benjamin. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> several live events tomorrow morning. the senate commerce committee will look into data security and privacy. members will hear from representatives of government agencies as well as consumer groups on the collection and security of personal information. that is here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and then, on our companion network, c-span 3, at 10:30 a.m. eastern, a hearing on the impact of supreme court rulings on corporate behavior. witnesses before the senate judiciary committee are scheduled to include betty duke's, the lead plaintiff in

the class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 1 million female employees of wal-mart. the court recently decided that the employees did not have enough in common to pursue a national class-action. >> after four and a half years and to president, defense secretary robert gets -- rocket is set to retire this week. he will be replaced by -- defense secretary robert gates is set to retire this week. he will be replaced by leon panetta. search, watch, click, and share -- it is washington your way. >> harold koh told the u.s. that the war powers act did not apply in libya. then it marks the legislation

for a year, but barring ground forces. t >> the hearing will come to

order. i apologize for starting a few minutes late. we are here this morning to further examine an issue that we have been debating since it was passed. i think this is a good kid -- a debate of decades, since the 1970's. certainly, it has been debated over the course of the last week's with respect to the war parts resolution and its role in america's use of force in libya. want to thank all my colleagues for the very constructive manner in which we conducted that discussion over these past weeks. this afternoon, the committee will meet again. i would ask all the members, as you run into all the other members, if we could begin that meeting punctually. i think there is a fair amount of business. it is obviously important business. i want to try to considered as expeditiously as possible. that is with respect to the proposed resolution regarding the limited operations in support of the nato mission in libya. it is my personal firm belief that america's values and interests compel us to join

other nations in establishing a no-fly zone over libya. by keeping duffy's most potent weapons out of the fight, -- by keeping gaddafi's most potent weapons out of the fight, it was a big difference. it has been confirmed that the actions of the united nations indeed saved thousands of people from being massacred by gaddafi. there is no question in my mind about that. we also sent a message about something that matters to the american people, as a matter of our values. not it's about whether or leaders should be permitted, willy-nilly, to turn their armies on their own citizens, the citizens they're supposed to serve and protect.

i made clear my belief that the 60-day restriction contained in the war powers resolution does not apply in this situation, particularly since we handed over the operations to nato. some people, obviously, can draw different interpretations and will and we will have a good discussion about that. it is good to remember that the worker resolution was a direct reaction to a particular kind of war, to a particular set of events -- the vietnam war. at that time, it was the longest conflict in our history that resulted, without any declaration of war, in the loss of several thousand american lives spanning three

administrations. during those three administrations, congress never declare war. understandably, congress, after that, wanted to ensure that, in the future, it would have the opportunity to assert its constitutional program moves, which i do believe with and agree with, when america sends its soldiers abroad. but our involvement in libya is clearly different from our fight in vietnam. it is a limited operation and the war powers resolution applies to the use of armed forces in "hostilities or situations where imminent hostilities in vault are clearly indicated by the circumstances referring to the american armed forces." for 40 years, presidents have taken the view that this language does not include every single military operation. presidents from both parties have undertaken military operations without express authorization from congress.

i will emphasize that that does not make it right. i am not suggesting that it does. it still begs the analysis each time of whether or not it fits a particular situation. certainly, panama, grenada, haiti, costs of a, 11 non, the list is long where presidents have -- kosovo, lebanon, the list is long were presidents have done this. in lebanon, congress actually authorize action a year later. we have never minded in the war powers resolution -- we have never amended the war paras resolution. define hostilities only as those situations where u.s. troops were exchanging fire. with hostile forces. subsequent administrations, republican and democrat alike,

build on that interpretation. but, in libya today, no american is being shot at. american is being shot at. no american troops are on the ground, and we're not going to put them there. it is true, of course, it's true that the war powers resolution was not drafted with drones in mind. nes in mind. as our military technology becomes more and more advanced, it may well be that the language that i just read needs further clarification. maybe it is up to us now to predefined id in the context of this more modern and changed warfare and threat.

i recognize that there can be very reasonable differences of opinion on it this as it applies to libya today. so i am glad we're having ts hearing. i think it is important. many of us have met with members of the libyan opposition. i know senators are eager to get to know them better and to learn about their plans and goals. i see that we're joined this morning 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 recently angela merkel moved to actually recognize. like the ambassador, we would all like to see a brighter future for libya. that is why, when it comes to america's involvement, we need to look beyond the definition of hostilities and look to the bigger picture. a senate resolution authorizing the limited use of force in libya well, i think, show the

world, particularly muammar gaddafi, at a time when most people make a judgment that the vice is squeezing, 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 strong best when we speak with one strong voice on foreign policy. that is why i hope this afternoon we could find our way to an agreement on a bipartisan resolution. endorsing our supporting role in this conflict also sends a message to our allies and nato. secretary gates, prior to departing, made a very strong speech about nato. the need for nato to do more. the fact is, nato is doing more in this effort. and they are in the lead in this effort. we have asked, in the past, for

the alliance to date -- to take the lead in the conflict. too often they have declined. in this case, they have stepped up. i believe that for us to turn on our own words and hopes and urg ings of the last years and pull the rug out from under them would have far-reaching coequences. with that said, i am gridley -- it is a great pleasure for me to welcome here harold koh, the state department's legal adviser. he is a distinguished scholar of constitutnal law and international law. he has a long career of service in the government, as well as in academia we also have -- as well as in academia. we have some others that we asked to be here this morning, but they declined. on the second panel, we have two witnesses. mr. fisher, a scholar in residence of the constitution

project. he worked at the libry of congress as the senior specialist in the separation of powers, and he was a specialist in constitutional law. and the professor and there is from temple university, and he servedn the state department and on the national security council staff. he has written extensively on foreign relations law at the united states. so we appreciate all of our witnesses taking time to be here today. senator lugar. >> thank you very much for calling this meeting. we're considering the legal and constitutional basis for ongoing united states military operations in libya. the president declined to seek congressional authorization before initiating hostilities. subsequently, he has carried them out for more than three months without seeking or receiving a congressional authorization. this state of affairs is at odds with the constitution. it is at odds withhe president's own pronouncements

on the war powers during his presidential candidacy. for example, in december 2007, he responded to a question by saying, "the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an acal or imminent threat to the nation." before our discussion turns to constitutional and legal issues, i believe it is important to make a more fundamental point. even if one believes the president some how had the legal authority to initiate and continue u.s. military operations in libya, it does not mean that going to war without congress was either wise or helpful to the operation. the vast majority of members of congress, constitutional scholars, and military authorities would endorse the view that presidents should seek

congressional authorization for war when circumstances allow. there is a near uniformity of opinion that the chances of success in a war a enhanced by the unity, clarity of mission, and constitutional certainty that such an authorization and debate provide. there was no good reason why president obama should have failed to seek congressional authorization to go to war in libya. a few excuses have an offer, ranging from an impending congressional recess to the authority provided by a u.n. security council resolution. these excuses are not justified. 12 days before the united states launched hostilities, i called for the president to seek a declaration of war before taking military action. the arab league resolution, which is cited as a key event in calculations on the war, was passed a full week before we

started launching missiles. there was time to seek congressional approval, and congressould have debated a war resolution if the president had presented one. this debate would not have been easy, but presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient. if the outcomes in doubt, it is all the more reason why a president should seek the debate. if he does not, he is taking the extraordinary position that his plans for war are too important to be upset by a disapproving vote in congress. the founds believed that presidents alone shall not be trusted with war-making authority. and they constructed checks against executive unilateralism. james madison, in 97, wrote a letter to thomas jefferson and

said "the constitution supposes, like the 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, with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature." there are circumstances under which the president might be justified in deploying military force without congressional authorization. as senator webeb has pointed ou, none of the reasons apply to the libyan case. our country was not attacked or threatened with an attack. we were not obligated under a treaty to defend the libyan people. we were not rescuing americans or launchi a one-time punitive retaliation. nor do the operations require surprise that would have made a public debate impractical.

in this case, president obama made a deliberate decision not to seek a congressional authorization of his action, either before it commenced or during the last three months. this was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed expedience above constitutional responsibility. some will say that president obama is not the first president to employ american forces overseas in a controversial circumstances without a congressional authorization. to say that presidents ha exceeded their constitutional authority before is no comfort. moreover, a highly dubious comments from the obama administration for not needing congressional approval break n grou in justifying a unilateral presidential decision to use force. thapproval 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 heavily committed overseas. at the outset of this conflict, the president asserted that u.s. military operations in libya would be "ltd. in their nature, duration, and scope -- limited in their nature, duration, and." of the concerted that they did not require adult dog -- a declaration of war. three months later, these assurances ring hollow. activities have expanded to an all but declared campaign to drive gaddafi from power. the administration is unable to specify any applicable limits to the duration of the operations. and the scope has grown from efforts to protect civilians under imminent threat to obliterating libya's oppose the military arsenal, command and control structure, and leadership apparatus. most recently, the administration looked to avoid these obligations under the war

powers resolution by ming the incredible assertion that.s. operations in libya do not constitute hostilities. even some prominent supporters of the war have refused to accept this claim. the administration's own description of the operations in libya underscore the fallacy of this position the u.s. warplanes have reportedly struck libya air defees some 60 times since nato assumed the lead role in the libya campaign. predator drones have reportedly fired missiles on some 30 occasions. most significantly, the broader range of air strikes being carried out by other nato forces depend on the essential support functions provided by the united states. the war powers resolution required the president to terminate the introduction of u.s. forces into hostilities in libya on may 20, 60 days after he notify coness 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 in libya until nearly a month later, on june 15. even at that time, the administration's explanation was limited to four sentences. and it was a 32-page report on the libyan operations. the administration analysis focuses on the question of whether u.s. casualties are likely to occur. thereby minimizing other considerations relevant to the use of force. but this definition of hostilities that have a significant scope to conduct warfare from remote means, such as missiles and drones. it would deny congress a say in other questions of located in decisions to go to war, including the impact on u.s. strategic interests on our relations with other countries, and on our abilities to meet competing national security priorities.

the administration's report also implied that because allied nations are flying most of the missions over libya, the united states operations are not significant enough to require congressional authorization. this characterization underplays the centrality of u.s. contributions to the nato operations in libya. we are contributing 70% of the coalition's intelligence capabilities and a majority of its refueling assets. the fact that we're leaving most of the shooting to other countries does not mean the united states is not involved in acts of war. if the u.s. encountered persons performing similiar activities in support of al qaeda 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. mitary forces are performing in support of

other nato countries. these concerns are compounded by indications of the administration's legal decision being a result of the decision process. in press reports, the president made this decision without the department of justice having the opportunity to develop a unified legal opinion. the administration has refused our request to make witnesses from the department of defense and justice available for today's hearing, and that is regrettable. finally, one would expect the administration toe fully forthcoming on consultations about libya to compensate, in some measure, for the lack of congressional authorization for the war. although consultations are no substitute for formal authorization. they serve a vital purpose and unify a being -- unifying the government and providing congress with a basis for

decision making on the war. for the most part, for example, in the clinton administration and president clinton himself consulted with congress during the u.s. intervention in the balkans. in sharp contrast, the obama administration's efforts to control the congress have been perfunctory, and complete, and dismissive of reasonable requests. this committee alone has experienced at least three occasions when briefings or canceled or relevant witnesses were dend without explanation. it was pointed out that very basic questions about the operation have gone unanswered. the deputy secretary of state declined to address certain questions on the basis they could only be answered by the military, and yet the administration has refused to provide the committee with defense department witnesses. it is inexplicable behavior that contributes to the damage that the libyan president might create in the future. i do not doubt that president

obama elected to launch this war because of the altruistic impulse is, but that does not make the united states intervention in libya any less of a war of election. american pilots are flying in minority of the missions within the coalition, which justifies the contingent we're not engaged in hostilities, especially since u.s. participation enables most of the operations under way. the president does not have the authority to substitute his judgment for constitutional process when there is no emergency that threatens the united states a our vital interests. the world is full of examples of local and reasonable violence to which the united states military could be applied for some altruistic purpose. under the constitution, the congress is vested with the authority to determine which, if any, of the circumstances justify the consequences of american military intervention. i thank the chairman for the

opportunity to make this statement. >> so there you have it, sir. the stage is set. two differing views, reflecting over 50 years of service on this commtee. and we're still not sure what the answer is. so your task this morning is an interesting one, and i think we will not only ha a good dialogue, but maybe it will be fun. have added. you are on. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator lugar, and members of the committee for this important hearing. it is good to be back before you. like past the legal advisers, i am honored to appear to explain the administration's gal position on the war powers. i have submitted detailed testimony, which you have before you, which reviews the

brutality visited by gaddafi on the people of libya and the urgent, but restrained, steps this administration has taken to stop it as part of a supporting role within the nato-led security council-authorized civilian proteion mission that is limited with respect to design, exposure of u.s. troops, risk of escalation, and choice of military means. today, let me make three points. first, this administration is acting lawfully, consistent with both the letter and spirit of the constitution and the war powers resolution. contrary to what some have climbed, we're not asserting sweeping constitutional power to bypass congress. the president has nev claimed the authority to take th nation to war without congressional authorization. he has never claimed authority to violate the war powers resolution or any other statute. he has not claimed the right to violate international law, to use force abroad when doing so would not serve important national interest, or to refuse

to consult with congress on important war powers issues. we recognize that congress has powers to regulate and terminate uses of force and that the war powers resolution it plays an important role in promoting dialogue. my testimony continues that dialogue, which now includes more than 10 hearings, 30 briefings, and dozens of exchanges with congress on these issues. from the start, we have saw to obey the law a bill would not serve an administration that did not. the president reported to congress consistent with the war powers resolution within 48 hours of commencing operations in libya. he friend our military mission in narrowly, directing, among other thing that no ground troops would lead -- would be deployed. on iger 4, u.s. forces would transition responsibility to nato command, -- on april 4, u.s. forces with transition responsibilities tnato comman this does not constitute a bore,

requiring specific congressional approvalnder the declaration of war clause of the constitution. as my 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 which we cite makes clear there was no agreed upon screw of exactly what the term hostilities would encompass, nors that what standard ever been defined by any court or by congress itself. from the start, legislators disagreed about the meaning of the term and the scope of the 60-day pullout rule and whether a particular set of facts constitutes hostilities for purposes of the resolution. has been determined less by a narrow parising of dictionary definitions than by interbranch practice. the members of congress who drafted the war powers resolution understood that this resolution is not like the internal revenue code, reading the war powers resolution should not be a mechanical exercise. testimony notes on page

13, the president has constitutional authority -- [no audio] please stand by > as everyone recog as my testimonyni recounts, and as senator kerry has himself noted, there are various leaders of this congress who have indicated that they do not believe that the u.s. military operations in libya amount to the kind of hostilities envisioned by the 60-day pullout provision. u.s. military operations in libya and not the kind of hostilities' envisioned by the 60-day pullout provision. we believe that you is correct and confirmed by historical practice. the historical practice, which i summarize anmy testimony, suggests that when u.s. forces engage in limited military mission that involves limited exposure for u.s. troops few and limited risk of serious escalation and employs a limited military means, we're not in hostilities of the kind of vision by the war to trigger an automatic 60-day pullout. let me say a word about each of these limitations.

first, the nature of the mission is unusually limited. but presidential design, u.s. forces are playing a constraint and supporting role in the nato- led multinational civilian protection mission charged with enforcing the security council resolution. this circumstance is virtually unique, not found in any of the recent historic situations in which the hostility questions has been debated from the iranian hostages crisis to also the door and others. second, the exposure of our armed forces is limited. from the tnsition date of march 31 forward, there have been no u.s. casualtie no threat of significant casualties, no active exchanges of fire with hostile sort -- hostile forces, no significant ard confrontation or sustain confrontation of any kind with hostile forces.

sustained active combat or an expanding geographic scope. in this respect libya contrasts with other recent cases. lebanon, central america, somalia, the persian gulf tanker controversy discussed on page 10 of my testimony where past administrations declined to find hostilities under the war powers resolution, even though u.s. armed forces were repeatedly engaged by other forces and sustained significant casualties. and fourth and finally,

senators, we are using limited military means, not the kind of full military engagements with which the war powers resolution is primarily concerned. and there i quote from a statement by my predecessor, the legal advisor of 1975, in response to a request from the congress about an incident during the ford administration. the violence u.s. armed forces are directly inflicting or facilitating after the handoff to nato has been modest in terms of its frequency, intensity and severity. the air to ground strikes conducted by the u.s. are a far cry from the extensive aerial strike operations led by u.s. armed forces in kosovo in 1999 or the nato operations in balkans in the 1990's, to which the u.s. forces contributed the vast majority of aircraft and air strike sorties. u.s. forces contributed the vast majority of aircraft and air strikes. to be specific, the bulk of u.s.

contributions has been provided intelligence capabilities and refuelg assets to the nato effort. a very significant majority of the overall sources, the puppie and flown by our coalition partners. of the overwhelming majority of strike sorties are being flown by our partners. american strikes have been limited on an as-needed basis to the suppression of enemy air defenses to enforce the no-fly zone and enemy strikes black pepper -- predator unmanned vehicles. by our best estimate, senators, since the handoff to nato, the total number of u. munitions dropped in libya has been less than 1% of those dropped in kosovo. we acknowledge that had any of these elements been absent in libya or present to different degrees, you could draw a different legal conclusion. but it was the unusual

conflicts of these four limitations and operations ltd. in mission, exposure, and risk of escalation, and limited in choice of military means that what the president to -- to conclude that the libya operation did not fall under the automatic 60-day pullout rule. as chairman kerry suggested, we are far from the court case that most members had in mind when pass the resolution in 1973. there were concerned about no more vietnams. given theimited military means to risk of escalation, exchanges of fire, and u.s. casualties,we do not believe that the 1933 congress intended that this resolution should be construed so rigidly to stop t president from supporting action in nato- led security council authorized operation with international approval at the express request of nato, the arab league, a gulf cooperation council, in libya's

on transitional national council for thearrow but urgent purpose of preventing a slaughter of innocent civilians in libya. third and finally, we fully recognize reasonable minds look at the resolution differently. it would not be surprised that they have since there inceptions. scholars have spent their entire careers debating these issues. these questions are matters of important public debate. reasonable minds can certainly differ. and with knowledge that there perhaps steps that we could have taken to foster better communication but none of us beeve that the best way forward now is for gaddafi to prevail and to resume his attack on his own people. with the u.s. not to drop out of this collective civilian action mission or to sharply curtail

its contributions would not only compromise our international relationships and destabilize the region, but would undo nato's progress by permanent gaddafi to return to the brutal attacks on the very civilians whom our intervention has protected. however we may construe the war powers resolution, we can all agree, it would only serve gaddafi's interest for the u.s. to withdraw from this nato operation before it is finished. congress provided support from a to -- were congress to have provided the support to the mission, ensuring that it often does not regain the upper hand against the people of libya, so in closing i ask that you take quick and decisive action to approve senate joint resolution 20, the bipartisan resolution introduced by senators kerry, mccain, durbin, and others to provide continued operations in libya, to enforce the purposes of security council resolution

1973 and the aspirations of the libyan people. thank you, senator. i look forward to answering your questions. >> to buy. i will reserve my time for such time as i may want to intervene with my questions. i will turn to senator lugar to start. >> one of the reasons w it is important to have this hearing and likewise debate on this issue is that throughout the middle east and throughout the world, there are a number of situations in which the united states and other nations have severe disapproval of the governments of those countries. we work with others in the

united nations to attempt to bring about conditions that are better for the people of countries that we believe are under a totalitarian or a very authoritarian misrule. in this particular instance, there were other uprisings in t egypt uprisinunisia which caught the attention of the world. -- in egypt and tunisia. in the case of libya, however, the arab league and the united nations and nato, and what have you, ultimately thenited states, made a decision to intervene in a civil war. there was shooting going on in libya. it can very well be that person's organs -- who were innocent not be caught in the crossfire. this is the tragedy of civil wars, i suspect, wherever they

may be held on this earth. our decision was to intervene in a civil war, and we're continuing to do that. despite the fact, we talked about the end of the muammar gaddafi rule, about the importance of gaddafi leaving the country and even sending out rumors that he may be entertaining such thoughts. my basic question is, if we do not have some ground rules. we have to have a more formal declaration of war. this country could decide to intervene in numerous civil wars. it could decide to affect the governance of peoples all over the world.

we feel that is unfair. what is your general comment about this predicament? he may feel very strongly that gaddafi world is so egregiously out of line, as opposed to all the other dictators, there's no doubt we need to intervene, to prevent him from shooting at people who may be opposing him, and they may be shooting at him and his forces. what is the ground rules for dealing with civil war all over the earth? >> thank you for that very thoughtful question. you have been one of the most thoughtful defenders of the constitution, and i recognize the difference of view between what i have expressed in what you have expressed is from a good-faith disagreements.

i and understand the concern that you have, but throughout the middle east, there is only one situation in which there is a u.n. security council resolution and narrowly drawn, in which nato has agreed to take command of the operation, in which the arab league supported the operation, in wch four muslim countries were ready to join the countries and had been flying flights, and in which the president was able to structure the mission so there was limited nature so the u.s. would move very quickly into a limited supporting role where there would be no ground tros so that there would be a limited exposure, were the risk of escalation would blow, and were the united states, after the transition, would narrow the means being employed so that only its unique capabilities could be used to prevent gaddafi from using the tools that command and control to kill his own people. so that is a very unusual set of

circumstances, and what we're saying is, the president acted lawfully. the wisdom in otherountries is the subject of substantial discussion. it would be complicated to replicate an unusually narrow set of facts. i think our theory and legal approach has been dramatically misunderstood. there's some suggestion that we are flouting the constitution. in fact, we have made it clear that we're not challenging the constitutionality of the resolution. it fits whin a resolution that has been on the books now for almost 40 years and which was designed to play a particular role and will have to be adapted

to play that role efftively in this century. >> obviously, i raisethe question because i fear that there may be circumstances in which we might be staging, based upon the security council or somebody else, to intervene in other situations, like our own war powers, declaration to be clarified before we get into that point. i raise one more point, and this may require more hearings, and that is, although we say that the force that we're offering is limited, and this could include the missiles we fire or a drone strikes, what have you. my guess is thatf another country were employing such methods against us, without employing any troops on the ground of the united states or any of the so-called conventional means of war, we would see this as an act that was hostile. it would clearly be hoslities. very clearly, we would say that is grounds for us to be at war

with whoever is firing at us in these situations. this is why i think perhaps the administration needs to work with congress to try to think throug during this time of the drone warfare or a long-distance warfare, that it is not a question simply of whether american casualties occur or their hostilities on the ground. war in the fute may be fought in an entirely different way. perhaps not encompassed by the war powers act, but surely needs to be encompassed by all of this and to be thoughtful about the evolution of these hostilities. >> well, senator, you make two points. i was thiing this morning that the first time i testified before the senate on war powers issues was in january of 1991. as desert shield was about to become desert storm. there was a u.n. security council resolution there. but the question was, did you also need an authorization for

use of military force? my position there, which remains the same, is tt in th circumstance, despite the fact of the multinational coalition authorized by a security council resolution, the proposal was 400,000 u.s. troops and comparable vessels and accompanied forces, which was the number of forces in vietnam at its height. the u.n. security council resolution alone does not absolve the situation of requiring approval. what makes ts situation unusual is not the existence of the security council resolution, but the fact that the mission that has been structured under it is so limited with the u.s. playing such a narrow and supporting role and with such limited exposure. we're talking about, as senator kerry said, no casualties, and the threat of casualties, and a significant on engagements.

another point that has been made by some about our legal approach is that we're somehow suggesting that drones get a free pass under the war powers resolution. that is not at all what we were saying. but you make the key point, when the statute talks about the introduction of u.s. armed forces into hostilities and what you're sending in is an unmanned aerial vehicle high in the sky, it is not clear that that provision was intended to apply to that particular weapon. it does with the question on how to update the war powers resolution for modern conflict. there will be situations of cyber conflict and other kinds of modern technologies coming into play, which senators and members of congress never

envisioned by 1973. so it may well be, and i think you make the point well, that there was an effort here in the wake of vietnam to drop a kind of framework statue that would allocate authorities, called for reporting, try to promote dialogue -- >> thank you. senator casey. >> thank you. i wanted to pursue some of the same line of questioning, and i appreciate the fact that this is diffict as a matter of constitutional law, but also difficult as a matter of policy and perception. i hear a lot from people in pennsylvaniahat have real concerns about this policy, not

only on some of the constitutional debates we're having but just in terms of the clear impression that has been created that we are engaged in hostilities of one kind or another. it's very difficult f people to separate from that perception. there are reports, we know, at least according to the "new york times," that since this handoff to place, that u.s. warplanes have struck, according to this one report, 60 libyan targets, and at the same time, unmanned drones, according to this report, fired at libyan forces roughly 30 times. in the context of that reporting, i would ask you about this a broader question, i guess, are this more poignant

question. as it relates to the administration's justification of drone attacks -- on drone attacks as so-called non- hostile operations. how do you get their just as a matter of law? >> thank you, senator. i appreciate again the thoughtfulness of the question, which i think is a very good one. in the early days of the libyan action, as secretary gates described, the goal was to create an no-fly zone. to prevent gaddafi from attacking his own people. as we point out, footnote 5 of my testimony, gaddafi appears to have rules of engagement call for indiscriminate attacks on his own people. no mercy rules, rape as a weapon

of war. these have led to but the commission of inquiry and an arrest warrant against him yesterday at the international criminal court. the question of what kind of military mission to structure to respond, and the core of it was, first, the establishment of the no-fly zone. second, for the u.s. to shift from a lead role into a support role. and the bulk of the contributions, as i have suggested, have been primarily intelligence, refueling, search and rescue, flyovers and the like, with no fire at all. but there are two elements that have been added to the picture. one is mirrored defenses. it gaddafi's command and control existed and if initial efforts have been made to destroy that command and control, and he shifts those operations to othecommand and control, he can replicate his

capacity to kill civilians such a move from one and then stop is simply allowing gaddafi i a game to return to the very acts that led to the intervention in the first place. that has been the basis of the notion that american strikes should bauthorized on an as- needed basis to suppress enemy air defenses to enforce the no- fly zone. and then, the unique capabilities that american military forces have been requested by the nato allies to hit particular discrete targets to support the civilian protection mission, particularly command and control or other kinds of anti-aircft, which are difficult to reach by other means. let me emphasize again some numbers that i gave earlier, because i think they are important. in the overall number of

sorties that have been flown, the united states is flying a quarter. but in the strike sorties that are being flown, the united states is a flying only 10%. the predator strikes, as you suggested, are a relatively small number, and the total number of munitions dropped by either manned or predators at this moment, accordi to our best information, it is less than 1% of the amount that was dropped in kosovo, in which there s a substantial debate over the application of the war powers resolution. so you came back to the question -- are we engaged in hostilities? as i said, this is not a parsing of dictionary terms. it is a statutory provision. congress passes provisions of the time that have terms of our like, emergency, the word treaty in want statute was recently read to me in an executive

agreement. i am sure the foreign relations committee will have questions about that. the words chosen here was hostilities. over time, hostilities has been defined thrgh executive and congressional practice to encompass some level of strikes were the major focus, as i have suggested, being on whether the mission is limited, whether the risk of escalation is limited, whether the eosure is limited, and whether the choice of military means is narrowly constrained. it is within that set of four limitations that apply here that it was our conclusion that we are well within the scope of the kinds of activity that, in the past, have not been deemed to be hostilities for the purposes of the war powers resolution. >> i will ask some other qutions by the way of supplemental written questions. i would ask you, as well, i connection with this, are you concerned about the press in

here as a relates to ecutive power? you have any concerns about that? and you think that this is breaking new ground? >> they're two different questions. of course, i am concerned about the precedent. i spent much of my academic career writing about the balance of powers between congress and the executive and foreign affairs. in 1990, my first book on the subject, i pointed out that the basictructural flaw of the war powers resolution, which has a number of virtues. one of the virtues is that it promotes dialogue through a blunt time limit. but one of its structural flaws is that it requires an automatic pullout without congress ever having been made a specific judgment about whether or not they approve or disapprove of an action. and that could lead, in certain circumstances, to atrocities

resuming because of the lack of a clear congressional stance. the goal in the vietnam era was to try to find a single congressional position that could be applied. i agree that there have been caseshich the executive branch has overreached. i have written about this in my academic work for many years. which is precisely why the precedent here, we think, has been narrowly drawn. as i said, we're not challenging the constitutionality of the resolution, which a number of administrations have. we're not saying the war powers resolution should be scrapped whether it is constitutional or not. what we're simply saying is that when the mission is limited, the risk of escalation is limited, the threat to troops is limited, no ground troops. and win at the tools being used are extremely limited, that that does not trier the0-day

clock. and in doing so, we look to executive and congressional precedents dating back to 1975. the persian gulf tanker controversy, lebanon, somalia, grenada, to see where it fit. and when you have a situation in which something like kosovo or bosnia, campaigned we are talking here about 80 casualty, little or no risk of escalation and 1% of munitions, that strikes us as a difference that ought to be reflected. the rationale i am presenting today, if any of those elements are not present, none of those at necessarily 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 opinio 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 ther'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 irresolutn en 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 didot 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. u 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. fomy 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 t 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 cld drop

a nuclear bomb on tripoli and we would not be involved in hostilities. that goes to a preposterous argument being made. one ofhe issues of precedents you are setting is that predators now, the president of the united states, and the justice department of this administration has spentots 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 predent 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 ing 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 outf shape and require reexamination of the warowers 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 anyountry 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 pors act. they tried to make it a lesser level.

they started out with armed conflict. they started out wit 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 pasthe war powers act. you introduce a mathematical formula. i'm sure future presidents wl use a mathematical formula if we are only doing x% of the bombing than we are not involved in hostilities. but i find tha 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 mination. 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 noeed 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 tecology 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 hav 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 presidentas 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,eported to congress that the united states, pursuant to requests from the arab league and authorizati by the united nations security council to prevent a humanitarian crisis in libya. iould 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 dthat 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 le 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 declad 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 facthat 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 outsi 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 otr 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 lett, is interject a debate that has to do with credibilit 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 i all alo.

but i do think it is important. i did hear you say are rushing to get a resolution and i heard you say the senate is irrelevant. i think when you measure those things against the reality of what the president asked us to do, any of this issue is because the senate has been having a very difficult time getting anything done lately. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i woullike to express my appreciation for senator cor ker showing me how to get seven -- had it 25 minutes out of seven minutes. in reaction to the exchange that just took place, one of them is whether or not the president's consulted with certain people in the senate and whether or not there was a request for us to validate the aged -- the

actions, the issue before us now is the administration is coming to us nothing the war powers act is not apply in this situation because of their very narrow and, in my opinion, contorted definition of hostilities. that is the issue before us, about the other one. i would just like to say i think the most unusual part of this decision was not simply the issue my colleague raised, which was a very important issue in terms of indirect fire, but the use by a president of a very vague standard that he can unilaterally inject military force into situations around the world based on a vague standard of humanitarian assistance. we have not seen that before. that's something that demands a certain amount of

accountability. this was the major reason i started to become concerned with the way this operation was unfolding. but i will say we have an operation that goes on for months, cost billions of dollars, where the united states is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the nato figleaf or dropping bombs that are killing people or paying your troops offshorcombat pay, and there is the prospect of escalation -- something i have been tryi to get a clear answer from this administration for several weeks now -- that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another wednesday regime expires. i would say that is hostilities. there was a debate inside the administration on this definition, was there not? >> the president took the

position -- >> but there was a debate as to the issue of whether this constituted hostilities. we read about in the paper. >> just yes -- >> just yes or no. >> i cannot comment on illegal -- >> there is plenty of reporting that there was a good bit of debate as to whether this was the right way to go. what do you make of the fact military people offshore are receiving combat pay? >> there also suit -- there are also receiving it in greece, the negroes, saudi arabia, turkey and other countries and the same provision. it doesn't mention hostilities and i don't think anybody believes we are in a war powers situation in this country. -- in those countries. these are hard questions. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, but i've really only have

about seven minutes here. >> demand danger pay is given on a different basis than hostilities. -- imminent danger pay is given on a different basis than hostilities. at the end of the day, this is a question of statutory interpretation. it is not the administration saying drones are not covered. the question is whether when you have an unmanned aerial vehicle, that's the introduction of u.s. armed forces in a statute drafted by congress. if that language along or works -- >> just in general, if you are engaged in a vietnam-type military operation, which i was, you have certain support elements providing in direct

assistance to the people putting bullets on the battlefield. i really don't see any distinction here because in the vietnam environment, i was a journalist in afghanistan, i was a journalist in beirut. not everybody is a trigger- polar. the definition between aircraft that are revealing the bombers or conducting intelligence activities or surveillance is an artificial distinction. >> nobody is saying something replicating vietnam at this moment would not be -- >> i'm not talking about vietnam. i'm talking about afghanistan or beir -- same thing. >> i think you make the most important point of all -- these are points of judgment. in your role in the navy, you made that judgment. it is not a mechanical formula.

whether the mission has been shaped this particul way in this particular setting with this particular risk of escalation exposure, which are very low -- >> you repeated that language several times today. i understand the language. let me ask another question because it's a very important question. we still have not severed relations with muammar gaddafi's government, have we? if we have, it's the last week or so. technically, we still recognize this government. would that be a correct interpretation? >> we are trying it to all the responsible -- >> give me a legal answer. we have not severed relations. is that correct? >> the reason for that -- >> it their relations --

>> they have been suspended but they're not severed. what's the constitutional mitation on the assassination of the head of state? >> the assassination of head of state is restricted by executive order. that executive order is enforced. the admiral has made clear that despite press reports, he has not expressed a view -- airline >> the executive order would say -- there is a preclusion against the assassination of the head of state? >> the wording of it is an unlawful act. the interpretationould depend on the facts of the situation. the reason for the lack of severing is so that the government can remain an spot -- and remain responsible under international law for the things gaddafi is doing using the forces of the government. >> i understand that.

you cannot distinguish that on that point any more than it is relevant in -- relevant to distinguish out hostilities base of these other realities. people will have differences of opinion on that. there is a lot of talk about the way in which muammar gaddafi shld exit. nobody appear once in to remain. but the moral standard we sat on issues like this is the same one we should expect. it is a point we need to be thinking about. >> it's a good point. i'm glad you raised it. i don't want you to feel cut off. the purpose of having a limitation is that everybody is here. if there are four or five of us, i have no pblem letting senators go longer. >> i feel well taken care of today.

>> thank you for joining us today. i want to start by thanking the members are of -- our armed forces, those who sacrificed so much to themselves in harm's way. the discussion today has a number of questions important to national security. especially when we consider there are lots of places in the world where our national security is placed in jeopardy by some of the things people are doing and people are saying. i think it is appropriately have this discussion because we want to make sure when we deploy these people, these brave young men and women who serve us so well that we are doing so in a way that maximizes their utility in protecting the americans at home.

how doou define the terms hostilities as used in the war powers resolution? >> the effort to define that, and this is described in the descriptions of the conversations of the sponsors was to leave the matter for subsequent executive practice. senator corker mentioned the term armed conflict. there was an irony -- armed conflict is a term of international law. they did not import that into the statutes precisely so international law would not be the controlling factor. the net result was in late 1975, under the ford administration, during that

administration, congress in the first footnote of my testimony invited the legal adviser to me forward with a definition of hostilities from the executive branch and apply the judgmentwe are describing here. in my testimony, i described the response given by mr. li and his co-author in which they essentially set forth a standard. this is on page 6 of the stimony. they said the executive branch understands in which armed forces are engaged in exchanges of fire with opposing unit of hostile forces. they said the term should not include situations which were

once in which the nature of the mission is limited, whe the exposure of forces is limited, the risk of escalation is limited or when they are conducting something less than full military counters as opposed to surgical military activities. >> where is that from? >> page 6 of my testimony in the first footnote, the letter from the state department legal adviser. with regard to the scientific affairs ought international relations. congress acknowledged it did not know what hostilities meant from the legislative history alone, so they invited the executive branch to give clarification. >> i do not disagree with the broader definition, but like so many definitions, that one has

been severely undermined. doesn't it strike you as something a little bit dangerous to say even when we have our own armed services or personnel firing upon the military establishment, the radar systems and other components of foreign nations defense system on foreign soil, regardless of what we have boots and the ground, it seems to me to be hard to say it does not involve hostilities. given the limitations of our time, i would like to come back to this if we have time -- in your opinion, is this question of the constitutionality of the war powers resolution 1 that logically could or would be resolved in any article 3 court

proceeding in light of the political question doctrine and immunity that might be enjoyed by one or more parties to any suit that might be brought? >> i think it's a good question. i think it's highly unlikely. there was in the vietnam era a number of cases. some cases did get into court. but the general pattern of the case law has been these suits have been dismissed on some preliminary ground. going to the earlier point, which someone is firing when there are booths on the ground, does that rise to the level of hostilities. in prior administrations, in situations in lebanon, grenada

the persian gulf tanker controversy, bosnia, kosovo, all were circumstances in which there were casualties and boots on the ground. many, many more munitions dropped. those were not deemed to be hostilities. it is on that basis we have come here saying this actual situation fits within the frame of hostilitiess it has been understood and does not trigger the 60 day limit. the final point -- >> i know you have a final point you want to make and have a final question i want to ask. for purposes of the discuss and here we are dealing with hostilities. if you agree that we were

dealing with are still a lease. would the president not have to justify -- when the president have to articulate a military justification for our involvement based on the language in section 154 meaning they are justified by a statutory authorization for congress by a definite -- declaration of war or a national emergency created by an attack on the united states by its territory -- on its territory. wouldn't that be the president's duty? >> the president has complied with the reporting provisions. talking about the reporting obligations. the requirement in section 1541 that says, recognizes the

constitutional power, the article to commander-in-chief power of the president to introduce the armed forces into the skillet these are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war caused-story authorization or a national security, and emergency created by an attack. that's what i'm talking about. >> as you can imagine, these are questions that have been debated for years. that's a statement by the 1973 congress by what it thinks the president's capacity is to introduce forces. take the professor from columbia law school and his book on foreign affairs and the constitution -- he describes our range of military actions last of hostilities and less than war that have been done outside the scope of that. the question is is that an

exhaustive list or is it not an exhaustive list? the critical point here is what we are doing here is the provisions of the statute from our perspective are not triggered. therefore we doot even get to the question whether the constitutionality of the statute is in play. we have no intention in this situation to raise that issue and we are operating as a matter of good faith statutory interpretation based on the very unusual facts present here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i would like to thank the chairman for his leadership for convening five different hearings on the actions in libya and i would like to thank senator lugar and others on the critical questions that pertain to the war powers resoluon. in the face of the atrocities committed by muammar gaddafi this year, the united states did have an obligation to protect

the libyan people om the very real threat of massacre. i supported and applauded 1973 to protect libyan civilians and was encouraged by the strong international consensus surrounding the issue and have supported u.s. military gateman as one per punt -- one component of the project led by nato. i have real an growing concerns about the approach to the role -- the war powers issue in the president the president has said here. i have always fou to enable and compelling advocate i'm reminded -- i'm reminded of the old saw -- when the facts are on your -- today, you have gued the facts. yet argued as ably as one possibly could and explained a very narrow reading of hostilities. a number of the senators to have spoken before me reflected the

fact our constituents are finding very real tension between a common sense understanding of hostilities in the exercise of statutory construction in which you are engad in your role to define these narrowing factors of mission, exposure, and means of escalation. the only part of the senators, and i would agree with is the concern about the statistics and the use of the percentage justification. other than that, i find your focus on the unique facts of the lian situation largely compelling. i am hopeful that later today our committee will move to make an appropriate resolution to this ongoing impasse between the administration and the senate. you repeatedly referred to one of the good outcomes of the war powers resolution being it promotes enter branch dialogue. i suspect you've got a good deal of that dialogue today. a few questions i would be interested in hearing your input

on -- understanding and respecting the difference in our constitutional rules. i would urge y to answer this in the context of the others -- what else could we have been doing between the branches to foster that dialogue. as you know through a scholarship, the war powers resolution is a rough-hewn artifact of its time. 've been very concerned that through a lack of respect and application, it has drifted into near irrelevance. i was encouraged to hear the stimony that suggests this administration of firms its constitutionality, its relevance going forward, and i would hope like to work in partnership to find ways to make it an effective tool a better bridge dialogue. first, and your response to senator lugar, he said drones do not get a pass under the war powers resolution. you also made a telling reference to cyber waare. thdepart o