I conclude by saying that the President started his speech explaining the reason why he wanted his resolution on Monday. I guess it was Monday. And he said at the very outset that this is based upon enforcing what was committed to in dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
I know my time is up. I will speak to this more later.
I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, but I hope we don't establish some totally new doctrine in our opposition to it.
Siding With Sen. John McCain
Madam President, I rise to explain why three brilliant lawyers can be all right at the same time--because they all started from a different premise, part of the confusion for the debate that listeners will find on the floor.
I join my friend from Arizona [Sen. John McCain] and my friend from Virginia [Sen. John Warner] in being opposed to this amendment, but for reasons different than theirs. Let me try to explain as briefly as I can.
The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat.
I do not believe there is an imminent threat in the next day or two or week or a month. The reason why I oppose my friend from the State of Michigan is because I believe there is an inevitable threat. We are either going to have to react, if not tomorrow, we will have to in the next 5 years. If this man is unfettered, with $2 billion per year in revenues, on the course he is on, I guarantee you, we will be responding. I guarantee you, we will.
Is it imminent now? No. Is al-Qaida involved now? No. Is all this talk about the likelihood of cooperation with terrorist groups a real immediate threat? No. I don't believe any of that now. But I do know we are going to have to address it. So the question is, do we address it now or do we wait a year or two or three.
The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President.
I can understand why my friend from Maryland is upset about the way it is characterized by the Senator from Connecticut.
The bottom line is I believe if, in fact, we do not get a U.N. resolution, we are in a position we were in with regard to Kosovo. My friend from Arizona and I stood shoulder to shoulder on Kosovo trying to encourage the previous President of the United States to use force against the Serbs in Kosovo. I will submit for the RECORD at the appropriate time, after we had gone through an effort to get the U.N. to support it. The U.N. would not support it. And then we went.
The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began.
On Seeking United Nations Authorization for War
The reason to go to the U.N. Security Council does not relate to sovereignty, it relates to security, and the security of the United States based upon the notion the President of the United States has recognized when he said he thought it was necessary to go to the U.N. Security Council.
I think the arguments made against the first part of the Levin amendment are specious. Why did the President of the United States go to the Security Council? Was he yielding our sovereignty? No more than our friend from Michigan is "yielding our sovereignty."
The President went to the U.N. because, as one White House official said to me, he had to do so. Why? For our security interests. If we did not go to the U.N. Security Council and check off the blocks, the moment any force crossed into Iraq, we would find every U.S. embassy burned down in every Muslim country in the world. He went for security reasons.
My only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now. That is the only disagreement we have.
I would disagree with those who argue against my friend from Michigan saying that by his making this contingent of going to the United Nations first, he is in no way yielding to American sovereignty, any more than the President has.
In the underlying resolution, it requires the President, in effect, to go to the United Nations and exhaust all diplomacy.
Nobody has suggested the President of the United States has yielded our sovereignty. No one should suggest the Senator from Michigan is, either.
