Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Delaware would yield a couple minutes for me to answer.

Mr. LEVIN. This is a grant of authority. The word ``only'' is not in there. The Senator from Connecticut sought to add it last night.

Mr. LEVIN. If I could finish my answer, when the Senator from Connecticut, in 1991, introduced and supported a resolution, which passed this Congress in a close vote--and the Senator from Connecticut was a leader in that effort; and I commend him for it--the resolution relative to the gulf war said: The President is authorized subject to this subsection to use U.S. Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. Did that mean because that grant of authority pursuant to a U.N. resolution was present, that the President could not operate in self- defense? Did you, somehow or other, by granting that right intend to eliminate the right of this Nation to act in self-defense? I know the answer is no. I know the answer is no. Yet in our resolution, when we explicitly preserve that right, somehow or other the Senator from Connecticut is finding it inconsistent with the pursuant grant.

Mr. LEVIN. Only?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I am voting against final passage of the Lieberman amendment. I have already explained much of my reasoning during the debate on my earlier amendment, but I wanted to state my opposition in one place. Section 4 of the Lieberman amendment authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States, one, ``against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;'' and, two, to ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.'' This grant of authority under (1) above, with its threshold of ``continuing threat,'' is virtually the issuance of a blank check to the President to use U.S. military force, since the Findings section of the amendment already contains the statement that ``Iraq poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States.'' The only limitation on the President's authority is found in section 4 of the amendment which requires that the President submit his determination to the Congress, within 48 hours after he exercises such authority, that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not protect our national security or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant Security Council Resolutions and that exercising such authority is consistent with the continuation of the United States and other countries actions against international terrorism. This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent. International law has required that there be an imminent threat before one initiates an attack under the rubric of self defense. The resolution's language regrettably, therefore, serves to implement the President's desire, as expressed in his September 2002 National Security Strategy, to ``adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries.'' This unfortunate precedent, if followed by, for example, nation A as a justification to use aggressive military force in the name of self-defense against nation B that nation A perceives poses a continuing threat to it, although the threat is not imminent, could lead to an increase in violence and aggression throughout the world. And it could have extraordinary consequences for the world if one or both of such nations possess nuclear weapons, such as India and Pakistan. The grant of authority under (2) above, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq is also unacceptable. For instance, Iraq is presently in default on its obligations under relevant Security Council Resolutions that require it to return Kuwaiti archives and property. It is exceedingly unwise to provide such a broad grant of authority when the real threat that Iraq poses is because of its refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and prohibited delivery systems. The Lieberman amendment also sends the wrong message to the United Nations. It contradicts the thrust of the President's speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12 when he said ``We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions'' and ``We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful.'' That is so because, at the same time that Secretary of State Powell is trying to negotiate with the U.N. Security Council for the very resolution that the President said he wants, the Congress would be vesting extraordinary authority in the President of the United States to ``go it alone,'' to use U.S. military force whether or not the Security Council authorizes Members States to use military force to enforce its resolutions. By telling the Security Council, if you don't act, we will, we are letting them off the hook. We should, instead, as we did at the time of the Gulf War, be putting all of our focus on having the Security Council adopt the requisite resolution and committing forces to implement it. We should be working to unite the world community, not divide it. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Lieberman amendment compounds all of these problems by authorizing the use of U.S. military force at this time unilaterally, i.e., without U.N. Security Council authorization. The unilateral, go-it-alone use of U.S. military force carries with it all of the risks that could be avoided or, at least, reduced by acting multilaterally, i.e., with the strength and world- wide political acceptance that flows from U.N. authorization. If we act unilaterally, will we be able to secure the use of airbases, supply bases, and overflight rights that we need; will there be a reduction in the international support we are receiving for the war on terrorism; will it destabilize an already volatile region and undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan; will Saddam Hussein and his generals be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against our forces and other nations in the region; will we be undercutting efforts to get other nations to help us with the expensive, lengthy task of stabilizing a post-Saddam Iraq? These are serious short- and long-term risks that will be exacerbated if we act unilaterally rather than multilaterally. Accordingly, and for all of these reasons, I will cast my vote against final passage of the Lieberman amendment. Vote On Amendment No. 4856, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the entire length of my remaining time.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is very much correct. I thank the Senator for the support and for her kind words earlier this afternoon. Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield for a question. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, that Saddam Hussein is a threat, must agree to inspections and be disarmed is something on which I hope we all agree. The only question here is: What is the best way to do that? Do we do that by going to the world community, as the President has, and saying we want the world community to enforce its resolution relative to weapons of mass destruction? And do we mean it? Do we go there, and are we serious when we say to them: We want you to act because it makes a difference, when force is used, as to whether or not it has the credibility and strength of the United Nations and the world community behind it? It makes a difference. It did not make a difference in Kosovo. It makes a difference here. The ramifications of going it alone here are major. In the short term, our troops are going to be more in danger if we go it alone without the U.N. authorization. We have been told by the Saudis and other countries we are not going to have access to their bases, their airspace, their support, unless there is a U.N. resolution. We have been informed of that. We know that the war against terrorism can be weakened unless we act as a world community. We cannot act unilaterally and expect that other nations are going to join us in a war on terrorism the way they would if there were a U.N. resolution supporting it. If we go it alone, there are both short-term risks as well as long- term risks. The long-term risks in going it alone are that without an imminent threat--if there is one, we can move in self-defense. No U.N. resolution is ever needed to act in self-defense. But to act without an imminent threat, to attack another nation, raises some significant precedent problems for other threatening parts of the world. India and Pakistan can easily say there is a continuing threat and use this kind of a precedent to justify attacking each other. That is not the kind of precedent we should set. So there are real risks that we should recognize in using force unilaterally. We should see the advantage of doing this multilaterally with the support of the world community. We should go to the world community, focus all of our efforts there, and tell them we are serious. We say we are. Let's mean it, not just say that we want them to be credible but mean it, and to tell them in advance: Oh, by the way, if you do not do it, we will anyway. It takes them right off the hook. Instead of putting a focus on the need for world community action to authorize this action and the advantage of it, our focus becomes blurred. It is an inconsistent message to the world. Now it is a message of unilateralism. We say: We need you, but whether you do it or not, we are going it alone. This resolution--and here I must say I agree with my friend from Arizona. He agrees with me that it would be better if we got authority from the U.N., and I am glad he does. And then when he says we must not delegate our security policy to the U.N., I agree with him. We never will; we never would. This resolution explicitly eliminates any such implication by the reiteration of the right to act in self-defense.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. That part I support.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 seconds. There may not be an inference in their rhetoric, but there is more than an inference in the resolution they support. It says resolutions of the U.N. It identifies them all, including the one on Kuwaiti prisoners. I am afraid while they may want to ignore the language in their own resolution, that is more than an inference that is there; that is authorized there. It is amazing to me that language is inserted into my resolution, which is not there, by the opponents of my resolution, while ignoring the language in their own resolution which is there. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEVIN. We are not saying what he cannot do here. This is an authority, if I may repeat. I assume this is coming out of the time of the Senator from Delaware; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. LEVIN. If there is neither an imminent threat, which has been the traditional definition of self-defense, if there is neither a threat which is imminent, which would justify traditionally acting in self- defense, or if there is not a U.N. resolution authorizing member states to use force to go with those weapons of mass destruction, then we are saying we will be in session to consider a Presidential request.

Mr. LEVIN. Could I have 30 seconds?

Mr. LEVIN. If I could complete that thought, this is a grant of authority. It is not a limitation of authority. That is a critical difference which, as lawyers, I think we understand. We are not saying what the President cannot do. We are saying nothing in here is in any way affecting the inherent right of self-defense. We are reiterating the inherent right of self-defense to avoid the kind of argument the Senator from Connecticut is now making, to preclude the argument. It has not worked. The Senator from Connecticut is still making the argument. But to make it clear that in no way are we affecting the inherent right of self-defense, we reiterated that right. Secondly, there is a grant of authority to act pursuant to a U.N. resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. It is a very significant section. What it says is, if the President does not get the resolution and if he cannot act in self- defense because the threat is not imminent, then he would come back to this Congress to seek unilateral authority. What the President has done is laid out a course of action which says even though the threat is not imminent, the President wants the authority to use unilateral action. As a matter of fact, the amendment which will be offered later on today by Senator Durbin will add the word ``imminent.'' I am quite sure the administration and the sponsors of the underlying amendment are going to fight very hard against adding that word ``imminent'' which has always, under international law, been required in order to attack based on a theory of self-defense. So all our language does is protect the opportunity for the President, in the absence of a threat which rises to self-defense, an imminent threat which would justify self-defense, in the absence of a U.N. resolution, it specifically says, we are not going to adjourn sine die. This is too important. If there is no threat that is imminent, if the U.N. does not act pursuant to this resolution, we would say to the President, we will come back to consider a unilateral authority. You don't need it, if it is self-defense. You don't need it, if the U.N. acts. But if it is not an imminent threat and the U.N. does not act, then we will be here to consider that request.

Mr. LEVIN. Is not imminent.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will withhold for a moment. Amendment No. 4862

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill, H.R. 4723, in the House. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation will help to build stronger economic ties between the United States and Ukraine. The cold war era Jackson-Vanik immigration restrictions that deny most favored nation trade status to imports from former Soviet-Block countries are outdated and when applied to Ukraine, inappropriate. Those restrictions were established as a tool to pressure Communist nations to allow their people to freely emigrate in exchange for favorable trade treatment by the United States. Ukraine does allow it citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate. It has met the Jackson-Vanik test. In fact, Ukraine has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under the Jackson-Vanik law. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade agreement went into effect. It is time the United States recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our bill does this as well as addressing traditional Jackson- Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human rights. It also deals with the important trade issues that must be considered when granting a country permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, such as making progress toward World Trade Organization, WTO, accession and tariff and excise tax reductions. Since reestablishing independence in 1991, Ukraine has taken important steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy. As a member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Ukraine is committed to developing a system of governance in accordance with the principles regarding human rights and humanitarian affairs that are set forth in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Final Act. I believe that more needs to be done to reform Ukraine's economy and legal structures, but I believe that the hope for PNTR and thus PNTR itself, can encourage these reforms. Drawing Ukraine into normal trade relations should lead Ukraine to achieve greater market reform and continue its commitment to safeguarding religious liberty and enforcing laws to combat discrimination as well as expand on the restitution of religious and communal properties. Also, PNTR status will hopefully do more than increase bilateral trade between the United States and Ukraine and encourage increased international investment in Ukraine. Hopefully it will also stimulate the reform we all want and Ukraine deserves on their way to achieving a mature nation statehood. Ukraine is important to U.S. strategic interests and objectives in Central and Eastern Europe and has participated with the United States in its peacekeeping operations in Europe and has provided important cooperation in the global struggle against international terrorism. It's time we recognize Ukraine's accomplishments and status as an emerging democracy and market economy and graduate it from the Jackson- Vanik restrictions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill, H.R. 4723, in the House. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation will help to build stronger economic ties between the United States and Ukraine. The cold war era Jackson-Vanik immigration restrictions that deny most favored nation trade status to imports from former Soviet-Block countries are outdated and when applied to Ukraine, inappropriate. Those restrictions were established as a tool to pressure Communist nations to allow their people to freely emigrate in exchange for favorable trade treatment by the United States. Ukraine does allow it citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate. It has met the Jackson-Vanik test. In fact, Ukraine has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under the Jackson-Vanik law. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade agreement went into effect. It is time the United States recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our bill does this as well as addressing traditional Jackson- Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human rights. It also deals with the important trade issues that must be considered when granting a country permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, such as making progress toward World Trade Organization, WTO, accession and tariff and excise tax reductions. Since reestablishing independence in 1991, Ukraine has taken important steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy. As a member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Ukraine is committed to developing a system of governance in accordance with the principles regarding human rights and humanitarian affairs that are set forth in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Final Act. I believe that more needs to be done to reform Ukraine's economy and legal structures, but I believe that the hope for PNTR and thus PNTR itself, can encourage these reforms. Drawing Ukraine into normal trade relations should lead Ukraine to achieve greater market reform and continue its commitment to safeguarding religious liberty and enforcing laws to combat discrimination as well as expand on the restitution of religious and communal properties. Also, PNTR status will hopefully do more than increase bilateral trade between the United States and Ukraine and encourage increased international investment in Ukraine. Hopefully it will also stimulate the reform we all want and Ukraine deserves on their way to achieving a mature nation statehood. Ukraine is important to U.S. strategic interests and objectives in Central and Eastern Europe and has participated with the United States in its peacekeeping operations in Europe and has provided important cooperation in the global struggle against international terrorism. It's time we recognize Ukraine's accomplishments and status as an emerging democracy and market economy and graduate it from the Jackson- Vanik restrictions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to bring to the attention of my colleagues a great American. Mr. Daniel A. Benac of Hillman, MI has made service to his country and community a cornerstone of his life. In 1942, Daniel answered the call to serve his country and joined the United States Army's 103rd Infantry Division. After being honorably discharged from the Army, Dan went back to Michigan where he became a member of a variety of important organizations including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the United Auto Workers. As a skilled tradesman, Dan also ran a successful small business. In the military, business and personal life, he has demonstrated his commitment to his country, family, and friends. Dan's leadership capabilities are highlighted by his commitment to a variety of community-based organizations including the Masons, Shriners, Disabled American Veterans, and the American Legion. He also serves as a Board member for the United Auto Worker's state-wide coordinating committee for the Democratic Party and the National Council for Senior Citizens. Furthermore, Dan is the Chairman of the Michigan Veterans Trust Fund for Montmorency County and Past Chairman of the Montmorency County Democratic Party. Dan currently serves as the chairman of Region 1D, United Auto Worker Retirees, a region which encompasses 62 counties. Daniel was instrumental in the formation of the Montmorency County Democratic Party and has served as the party chairman for many years. Dan and his wife Geraldine will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary on February 9, 2003. They have three children, eight grandchildren, and fifteen great grandchildren. At 80 years of age, he has been, and continues to be, an inspiration to all who know him. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting Daniel Benac for his leadership in the community dedication to his country, and loyalty to his family and friends.