Mike Levin: “It is quite the opposite. The good Senator from Connecticut read the language which makes it clear there is no veto. We…”

“It is quite the opposite. The good Senator from Connecticut read the language which makes it clear there is no veto. We can always have the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, period. We never will yield that to the United Nations or to anyone else. My good friend from Connecticut was the author of a resolution back in 1991. He led the way on this authorization in the gulf war. The Senator was correct in his analysis, that we should move in the gulf war, and my good friend from Virginia was as well. That resolution the Senator from Connecticut offered to support military action in the gulf war said the following: The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Virginia in the gulf war resolution had language which was adopted by a close majority, but nonetheless adopted, which said the President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to the United Nations Security Council resolution. Nobody suggested then that the Senator from Connecticut was giving the United Nations a veto over U.S. military force. That was a grant of authority to enforce a United Nations resolution. That is the same language we are using.”