July 20, 1973
Page 25101
Mr. JAVITS. I could not disagree more with the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield for a moment?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator, of course, is the author of the bill and the careful architect of its provisions. He understands what he intended by this legislation better than anyone else. But in response to the Senator from Michigan, let me make the point first – the historical point – that the President at that point did assemble the congressional leaders–
Mr. JAVITS. Of course he did.
Mr. MUSKIE. – at the time he considered the decision. Second, the declaration of war at the time of Pearl Harbor was made within 2 days of the attack on Pearl Harbor. So Congress is capable of acting quickly. But then, let me emphasize a point the Senator from New York made a moment ago. The language of subsection (1) of section 3, which confirms the emergency authority of the Commander in Chief:
To repel an armed attack upon the United States, its territories and possessions; to take necessary and appropriate retaliatory actions in the event of such an attack; and to forestall the direct and imminent threat of such an attack;
I remind both Senators that the implication from the pictures taken by our aircraft was to the effect that the installation of the missiles posed an imminent threat to the United States.
As the Senator from New York has said, I would hope that, given time, a President would still consult Congress. But one certainly could not challenge his good faith if he were to use that language in those circumstances to invoke the emergency powers.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator has answered the question exactly as I would, and I wish to add one other point.
No one denies for a minute that you still depend to a great extent upon the Presidency. As to all the loose talk about credibility, and so forth, we all can appreciate and understand that, but you cannot run a country that way. You cannot operate; you cannot pass laws on that theory.
We must assume that, having written it out, the President will obey the law in reasonable good faith. In any case, we will have something to repair to.
I believe that the answer to the Cuban missile crisis is that, given any time at all, the President would have seen his clear duty under this bill to come to us. What gives him the prescience and patriotism that is denied to us? I do not understand it. He is human and mortal, as we are. If you had any doubt about it yesterday, you should not have it today. What is the basis for the assumption that he is infallible and cannot make a mistake and that only we are capable of mistakes?
So much for the Cuban missile crisis.
As to the relief of the Berlin garrison, there was no imminent threat of war. The Senator, himself, said that. We just defeated an amendment by the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) which would have inhibited the deployment of our forces. So the President is perfectly free to deploy the forces of the United States. That covers the Berlin garrison problem.
As to the situation of the troops to Lebanon, there, again, the President should have come to us; and, in fact, he did. He got a resolution which in the terms of that time was valid: if they are attacked by Communist forces or Communist-backed forces.