Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the short title of our amendment is ``The Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.'' The very title of this alternative to the Lieberman-Warner amendment establishes both its similarity and its difference from the Lieberman amendment. It is similar because both of our approaches authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces. It is different because our resolution authorizes the use of force multilaterally pursuant to a U.N. resolution that the President has asked the Security Council to adopt for the purpose of destroying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited missile delivery systems. Our resolution also supports the President's call and urges the United Nations Security Council to promptly adopt a resolution that demands Iraq to provide unconditional access, unconditional destruction of all weapons of mass destruction and, in the same resolution, authorize U.N. member states to use military force to enforce that resolution. Our resolution also affirms that the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense. There is no veto given the United Nations in this resolution of ours. Quite the opposite. We explicitly make it clear we maintain, of course, a right to use self-defense. And we provide that the Congress will not adjourn sine die this year, but will return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the United Nations fails to adopt or enforce the United Nations resolution for which he and we call. The Lieberman resolution, like ours, authorizes the use of U.S. military force to enforce the Security Council resolution that is being sought by the President, as well as in the case of the Lieberman resolution, as well as earlier U.N. resolutions. But the Lieberman resolution also would authorize the use of force on a unilateral basis, not requiring that there be an imminent threat, which is essential to using force in self-defense preemptively under international law, but a lower threshold called a continuing threat. That would be a departure from the requirement in international law that the use of force in self-defense be for imminent threats. That can have significant negative consequences for the world. If other nations adopt that precedent, if India and Pakistan adopt that precedent, two nuclear-armed nations, they can find continuing threats against each other, not imminent, just continuing threats and, using our precedent, if we adopt the Lieberman resolution, say: That is the new standard in international law; it does not have to be an imminent threat; we can preemptively attack a neighbor and anybody else if, in our judgment, it is a continuing threat. If China decided that Taiwan, which it labels a renegade province, is a threat to its security, then under this precedent it can attack Taiwan under the approach that ``imminent'' is no longer a requirement. Acting multilaterally--multilaterally--as our alternative resolution does--in other words, with the backing of the United Nations--has a number of advantages. It will garner the most support from other nations and avoid the negative consequences of being deprived of airbases, supply bases, overflight rights, and command-and-control facilities that are needed for military action. Saudi Arabia has already said explicitly: If you do not get a U.N. resolution, you cannot use our military bases. And other nations have said the same. If they are going to be involved with us in using force against Iraq, they want the authority of a U.N. resolution to do it. Our resolution has a better chance of success in persuading Saddam Hussein to comply, to capitulate, to cooperate finally with the U.N. weapons inspectors and to disarm because it will have the world community looking at the other end of the barrel down at him. Our multilateral resolution reduces the chances of losing support from other nations in the war on terrorism, and we need law enforcement, intelligence, and financial cooperation from other nations. Our multilateral approach reduces the potential for instability in an already volatile region, and that instability can undermine Jordan, Pakistan, and possibly even end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a nuclear weapon nation. Our multilateral approach reduces the likelihood of Saddam Hussein or his military commanders using biological or chemical weapons against our forces, as he will be looking, again, down the barrel of a gun with the world at the other end rather than only at the United States. Both General Shalikashvili and General Clark testified in front of our committee that there is a significant advantage to our troops by going multilaterally in terms of the likely response of Saddam Hussein to a unilateral attack by the United States and the likelier use of weapons of mass destruction by him in response to a unilateral attack. Our multilateral approach will increase the number of nations that will be willing to participate in the fighting. It will increase the number of nations that will be willing to participate in the long and costly effort in a post-Saddam Iraq, and we would be avoiding setting that precedent of using force preemptively without an imminent threat. Mr. President, if we are serious about going to the U.N., as the President has said he is, we must focus our efforts there. We should not send an inconsistent message. We should not take the U.N. off the hook. We should not say: We really are interested in the U.N. acting, adopting a resolution, requiring an unconditional opening by Saddam, requiring the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction. We are saying we really mean that; that is the kind of resolution we want. We are saying that. We also want that resolution to authorize member states to use military force to enforce it. That is what we are saying on the one hand, but if the Lieberman resolution passes, then we will be sending the exact opposite message: If you do not, we will anyway. That takes the U.N. off the hook. That blurs the focus that we should be placing on the importance of multilateral action authorized by the United Nations. I believe that Saddam Hussein must be forced to disarm. I think it is going to take force, or the threat of force, to get him to comply. It seems to me there is a huge advantage if that force is multilateral, and going it alone is a very different calculus with very different risks. If we fail at the U.N., then under our resolution, the President can come back at any time he determines that the U.N. is not acting to either adopt or enforce its resolution. He can then come back here under our resolution, call us back into session, and then urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution. I thank the Chair, and I yield 8 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

Mr. LEVIN. I am afraid my time is allocated totally, unless it can be a brief answer. I would be happy to answer briefly.

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to answer that. It would be misconstrued if it were interpreted that way. This does not preclude the President from doing anything. This is an authorization. It is not a prohibition. It is an authorization to the President to use force. It does not preclude the President. It does not say the President may not use force. It says the President is authorized to use force. So there is no prohibition; there is no negative. The President has sought our authority. This resolution would give the President that authority.

Mr. LEVIN. Which is the WMD issue. It is only the WMD issue that is referred to.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will yield myself 30 seconds to, first of all, assure my good friend from Arizona that my amendment means what it says, that we reserve the right of self-defense at all times. There is no ceding of our security policy to the United Nations. We are very explicit on that. If I could also point out to my friend from Arizona, back in the gulf war time--and I will yield myself 30 additional seconds--the exact authorization in the gulf war was: The President is authorized, subject to such and such section, to use the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. And my friend from Arizona said at that time: I think we should get approval from the United Nations to use force, if necessary. And we should then, and if it could be done shortly, get approval from Congress to use force, if necessary. I am not suggesting--I am not suggesting--nor did I suggest then that the Senator from Arizona was ceding the policy of the United States to the United Nations just because he wanted to go to the United Nations first before we voted to get authority from the United Nations. I never suggested that because it was not true. He would never cede authority over our security policy to the United Nations, nor would I, nor would any Member of this body, nor does the resolution on which we are going to vote. I yield 3 minutes to our friend from Maryland.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. It specifically ``affirms that . . . the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.'' It explicitly preserves that right.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator yielding his right to the floor? If so, I would ask that before he does that, he open himself to a question.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator intends to yield the floor before Senator Helms speaks, would the Senator yield for a question first?

Mr. LEVIN. My question is this: In addition to the fact that cloture, if invoked, will close off debate and have the effect which has been described here, it has another effect, does it not, which is that amendments following cloture must be strictly germane? In preparation for the answer to that question, I want to say the following: The alternative amendment which I intend to offer is an amendment which says we should seek the U.N. to authorize force-to- force inspections, to authorize member states to use force-to-force inspections--in other words, to go multilaterally with force--but does not at this time authorize a go-it-alone approach. That is my alternative. My alternative also specifically provides--this is the question----

Mr. LEVIN. The rest of my question is this----

Mr. LEVIN. The alternative resolution which I intend to offer has a provision in it which will be prohibited from being included if cloture is invoked because even though it is obviously relevant to this debate, it is not strictly germane under our rules. I want to ask the Senator about this. Part of my alternative resolution says: Let us go to the U.N. Let us go together. Let us go multilaterally. Let's have the strength of the world community behind us because it avoids a lot of negative consequences and gives us great strength in proceeding against Saddam to go with the world. But part of my resolution is that Congress would not adjourn sine die so that the Congress could resume session, if necessary, to promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly act on a resolution to enforce inspections. That is an important part of the resolution that I intend to offer. But is it not true, I ask my good friend from West Virginia, if that part of the resolution is ruled not strictly germane, although it is obviously relevant, that means I would not be able to offer the resolution in that form? And is that also not a very negative result of cloture being invoked? Does that not deny us an opportunity to vote on something which is so important to this debate?

Mr. LEVIN. I will be offering the resolution in two forms: One that contains this important language which would fall if cloture is invoked; one that does not contain it, which it seems to me would then be denying the Senate an opportunity to consider, debate, deliberate a full alternative to the President's go-it-alone approach.

Mr. LEVIN. I believe there was only debate on Friday and Monday, no amendments. I am informed, debate only.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. Pursuant, then, to this unanimous consent agreement, I understand it would then be in order for me to proceed and to lay down my amendment tonight.

Mr. LEVIN. The Byrd amendment has not been disposed of.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Reed, Senator Bingaman, Senator Boxer, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Stabenow, I call up amendment No. 4862, which is at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session. This amendment provides that if the President then seeks authority to unilaterally go it alone without the authority of the United Nations, not in support of a U.N. resolution, he would then call us back into session and seek that authority from the Congress. This is an alternative to the unilateral approach which is in the White House-supported resolution. This gives the same authority to the President to use military force of the United States in support of the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but does not at this time address the issue of going it alone and authorizing unilateral action or saving that for a later time should the United Nations not act. President Bush described in Cincinnati in detail the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President Bush described in Cincinnati in detail the threat that the Saddam Hussein regime poses. I have relatively few differences with that description, and I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems and that the United States Armed Forces should participate in and lead a United Nations authorized force. That is what my amendment provides. The issue that is in dispute is whether unilateral force should be authorized by Congress at this time in case the United Nations does not act--whether we should authorize the President now to go it alone without U.N. authorization if the United Nations does not act. How we answer that question could have a profound and lasting effect on the safety of our children and grandchildren for decades to come because the difference between attacking a nation with the support of the world community or attacking it without such support is fundamental. The President answers the question by seeking a resolution from Congress that gives him the authority to use force under the auspices of the United Nations or to go it alone if the United Nations fails to act. He seeks this unilateral authority even though he does not condition its use on the threat to the United States by Saddam as being imminent. Indeed, the President stated in the national security strategy that was released by the White House last month that preemptive attacks to forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries can now be undertaken although a threat is not imminent. The new strategy the President has adopted explicitly states: We just adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. The President's Iraq resolution and the national security strategy, therefore, both take the position that an imminent threat is no longer required as a basis for our military action in self-defense. The President is explicitly seeking to modify the traditional concept of preemption by deleting the need for ``imminent'' and substituting that of ``sufficient threat'' in the strategy document and ``continuing threat'' in the proposed resolution--dropping the requirement for ``imminent''--that the threat be imminent--and substituting something far less--``sufficient'' or ``continuing.'' That the President is seeking authorization for a unilateral preemptive attack without U.N. authorization or requirement of imminent threat is at the heart of the Senate debate that is presently taking place. Under the traditional international law concept of preemption in self-defense, the United States would be justified in acting alone in the case of a serious threat to our Nation that is imminent. In a case where a threat is not imminent, military action would also be justified if it were carried out pursuant to the authorization for the use of force by member states of the United Nations. The choice facing the Senate is whether Congress should now, at this time, give the President the authority to go it alone, to act unilaterally against Iraq if the United Nations fails to act. Congress is being presented with this issue at the very same time our Secretary of State is trying to get the United Nations to back a tough new resolution authorizing member states to use military force to enforce Iraqi compliance with inspections and disarmament. On Monday, the President said: I have asked Congress to authorize use of America's military if it proves necessary to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. That sounds like my alternative, but in fact the White House resolution asks for much more. The resolution the White House seeks is not limited to the use of force if the United Nations authorizes it. On the contrary, it specifically authorizes now the use of force on a unilateral, go-it- alone basis, that is, without Security Council authorization. The President's rhetoric does not match the resolution before us. The White House approach also authorizes the use of force beyond dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, which is also a difference from my resolution. The resolution which I offer on behalf of those cosponsors and myself is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis, and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone, that is, whether we should act unilaterally against Iraq if the United Nations fails to act. This resolution I am offering does the following: First, it urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution promptly that demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be located and destroyed, and within that same U.N. resolution authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states as a means of enforcement in the event that Iraq refuses to comply. Our resolution also specifically authorizes use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms and the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain Iraqi compliance with such a U.N. resolution. Our resolution affirms that under international law and under the U.N. charter, especially article 51, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense. This affirms the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action. I repeat that because some of our colleagues have suggested otherwise about our resolution. The resolution we are offering explicitly affirms the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action because we state explicitly the United States has at all times an inherent right to use military force in self-defense. Our resolution also provides Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session, if necessary, and promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly act on the resolution I have described above. Our resolution therefore supports the President's appeal to the United Nations and it approves now the use of our Armed Forces to support the action of the United Nations to force compliance by Saddam Hussein with inspections and disarmament. However, it does not authorize now, before we know whether or not we have the world community on our side, U.S. Armed Forces going alone. Should we need to consider that possibility at a future time, the resolution provides for the immediate recall of Congress to do so. Our resolution does not, on the matter of war and peace, life and death, exceed the grant of authority needed by the President at this time. If Congress instead endorses the White House approach, allowing the unilateral use of force at this time, even in the absence of a U.N. authorization, we will be sending an inconsistent message. We will be telling the United Nations that if they do not act, we will, at the same time we are urging them to act. We would be taking the U.N. off the hook if we adopt the go-it-alone resolution. We would be telling the United Nations they are not particularly relevant at the same time we are urging them to be very relevant. If we want the United Nations to be relevant and credible, if we want the United Nations to succeed, if we want the United Nations not to be limited to humanitarian and disaster relief and other tasks that are mighty useful but not essential--and I think most of us do--then we have to focus our efforts there and give those efforts a chance to succeed. If we act wisely, authorizing the use of our forces pursuant to a U.N. resolution authorizing member States to use force, we will not only unite the Congress, ultimately we will unite the world community on a course of action that will seek the elimination of Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. That is where our focus should be, uniting the world, not dividing it. Moreover, a going-alone approach, in which we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community, entails serious risks and could have serious consequences for us in the Middle East and around the world. It makes a difference, when deciding to use force, whether that use of force has the support of the world community. It makes a difference for us in the current situation involving a possible attack on Iraq. If we go it alone, will we be able to use air bases, ports, supply bases, overflight rights in the region? Those rights and capabilities are important to the success of a military operation against Saddam. The Saudis have said publicly that without the U.N. authorization, we will not have access to important bases, and that is just one country. Others have said something very similar. If we go it alone, will there be a reduction in the broad international support for the war on terrorism, including the law enforcement, financial and intelligence cooperation that is so essential? If we go it alone, will that destabilize an already volatile region and undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan? Could we possibly end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a country which has nuclear weapons? If we go it alone, will Saddam Hussein or his military commanders be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations in the region and against our military forces in response to our attack? That would be the case if he faced a U.N.-authorized coalition, particularly if that coalition included Muslim nations as the coalition did during the gulf war. If we go it alone, will we be undercutting efforts to get other countries to help us with the expensive and lengthy task of stabilizing Iraq after Saddam is removed? Beyond the current situation relative to using force in Iraq, going it alone without U.N. authorization, based on a modified concept of preemption that no longer requires the threat to be imminent, will lead to a serious risk to international peace and security. If we act unilaterally, without U.N. authority or an imminent threat, that will create a dangerous situation for international peace and stability in the long term. We will be inviting other nations to forego an important rule of international law requiring a serious and imminent threat before one nation can attack another nation in the name of self-defense. India and Pakistan have a continuing threat, in their view, from each other. Even Greece and Turkey at times view each other as a continuing threat. If that becomes the test, and if we set the precedent in this resolution to authorize that kind of attack, in the absence of an imminent threat, we will be setting the world on a very different course, and we must consider a long time before doing that. That is what we should be called back into session to consider if the U.N. does not authorize force. By seeking a U.N. resolution that will authorize U.N. member States to use force if Iraq does not comply with its terms, we are not giving the United Nations a veto over the conduct of our foreign policy. What we are doing is getting from the United Nations strength and international support should military force be necessary. We should be seeking to unite the world against Saddam Hussein, not dividing it. Our immediate objective should be to get the United Nations to act, locate, and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. The threat Saddam presents is real and we should deal with it. But authorization for preemptive, unilateral U.S. action in Iraq does not need to, and should not be granted at this time. If the U.N. does not act, Congress can be called back promptly to consider a request to authorize force unilaterally and to consider the serious and different risks involved in pursuing the unilateral course. Last Monday's Washington Post carried a story in which a senior European official's response to the U.S. going it alone was: A lot of Europeans would feel they had been put in an intolerable position. For those who would agree to participate militarily: . . . it would be less a coalition of the willing than of the dragooned. Javier Solana, former NATO Secretary-General, currently the EU's top foreign policy official, in an address at NATO headquarters last week stated: Ad hoc coalitions of docile followers to be chosen or discarded at will is neither attractive nor sustainable. Just last week, after hearing from Prime Minister Blair and Foreign Minister Straw, the ruling Labor Party's conference in Britain issued a formal position on Iraq that included the following: The conference believes that the authority of the U.N. will be undermined unless it is enforced, and recognizes that in the last resort this could involve military action but considers that this should be taken within the context of international law and with the authority of the U.N. Just last Friday, Turkey's Presidential spokesman said his nation would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed them, stating ``an operation not based on international law cannot be accepted.'' The best chance of having Saddam Hussein comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions is to make sure when he looks down the barrel of a gun that he sees the world at the other end, not just the United States. I believe he will not open up to inspections without looking down the barrel of a gun. I think only the credible threat of force will, indeed, disarm Saddam Hussein. But the question remains whether or not we want that force to be the world's authorized, supported force, or whether or not we at this time want to say, well, if they don't, we will. We will go it alone. When we do not need to address that issue at this time when the President is going to the United Nations, when it undermines our argument at the United Nations that we want them and need them to adopt a strong resolution, to enforce it, to authorize member states to use military force to enforce it. That is the direction we should be going, that is the focus we should have, and it should be strong and undiluted, the question of whether we authorize at this time a go-it-alone approach, when that is not what is needed at this time. Congress should give the President what he said in Cincinnati he was asking for: The authority to use U.S. military force to enforce U.S. Security Council demands; not what the resolution that is supported by the White House provides, which is going-it-alone authority. Our focus then would be where it belongs, securing a United Nations resolution that can unite the world; that has the best chance of forcing compliance and avoiding war; that reduces the risk to our forces and to our interests throughout the world; that avoids to the maximum extent possible the negative consequences if force is required, including the loss of cooperation on the war on terrorism. That is the best chance of isolating Saddam Hussein, rather than isolating the United States. I wonder how much time I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. I understand my friends have some questions which I would be happy to try to answer on my 6 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I think the circumstances would determine the answer to that question that exists at the time. But the risks of going it alone are so much greater than going multilateral support. It seems to me we should consider those risks before reaching a decision. Tonight I have laid out some of those risks which I believe are serious risks of going it alone. That is what I think we would all need to consider at great length before authorizing going-it-alone authority.

Mr. LEVIN. I turn that into a question, whether or not I agree. It seems to me the opposite is true. We are asking the United Nations to take action. We want them to do it with one step. My resolution urges one step--impose the obligation on Saddam Hussein, and authorize force to enforce that mandate. It is one step in my resolution. If we go to the U.N., as we are now doing, and say we really need you, it is really important we have United Nations support, that is what we are saying, the President said we want you to be credible, it is totally inconsistent at the same time in your resolution to say, by the way, if you do not do it, we will. It just takes the United Nations off the hook. It sends the opposite message to the U.N. from what we should be saying to the United Nations and I thought the President was saying to the United Nations: We want you to be credible. We need the world to come together for Saddam Hussein. The resolution that the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut supports is basically to say, if you do not do it, we will go it alone. That is the wrong message to the world for many reasons.