Mike 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…”

“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.”