[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 37 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2601-S2603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WEBB:
  S. 759. A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations 
in Iran; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without 
congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to 
restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches 
when it comes to the commencement of military activities.
  I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure it 
will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their 
tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the 
international waters off of Iran's coast.
  I want to put up a chart. These are the exceptions that are clearly 
outlined in this bill: The legislation allows American forces to 
directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated 
from Iran as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry 
over into Iranian territory; the so-called hot pursuit exception. I 
have also excluded operations relating to intelligence gathering.
  The major function of this legislation is to prevent this 
administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against 
Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes 
this goal through the

[[Page S2602]]

proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an 
endeavor.
  Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might 
impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding 
that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the 
first place.
  In the past 2 weeks, we have seen a fresh willingness on the part of 
this administration to pursue new approaches for a regional settlement 
that will eventually allow the United States to withdraw our forces 
from Iraq and also increase stability in the Middle East. I commend 
Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates for their 
efforts in bringing about what seems to be the beginning of a clear and 
much needed course correction.
  It is particularly significant that Iran and Syria have been invited 
to participate and that the United States will join in the upcoming 
regional meetings regarding Iraq. These upcoming meetings will offer 
many different countries the opportunity to address legitimate concerns 
and to emphasize mutual interests. I am hopeful it will open the door 
for a different kind of dialogue with Iran.
  Despite its newfound level of influence in Iraq, it is not in Iran's 
best interest to see Iraq disintegrate into anarchy. Iran also has 
challenges with its own sectarian groups, not the least of which are 
the Kurds. Al-Qaida represents a threat to Iran as well, and it is not 
in Iran's interest to see this terrorist movement gain even more power. 
Free and open access to the Strait of Hormuz also is vital to Iran's 
economy given its overwhelming reliance on oil exports.
  As this regional conference approaches, the rhetoric with respect to 
possible Iranian activities inside Iraq continues, and the increases to 
our naval and missile defense presence in the gulf remain. The 
administration's past failure to engage with Iran diplomatically in a 
meaningful way, coupled with what Iran could perceive as preparations 
for a military strike, creates a potent brew that easily could lead to 
miscalculation on both sides.
  The 1988 incident with the USS Vincennes comes to mind, when an 
overly aggressive commanding officer, operating inside Iranian 
territorial waters, according to a subsequent admission by Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Chairman Admiral Crowe, shot down commercial passenger 
aircraft Iran Air Flight 655.
  These circumstances--the stated desire of many connected to this 
administration to invade Iran, the saber-rattling rhetoric, the 
strategic miscalculations in Iraq--call for this Congress to formalize 
an historic mandate that in recent years seems to have been lost to the 
public's understanding. Quite simply, it is the constitutional 
obligation of the administration to obtain congressional approval in 
order to commence military action against another country, except under 
very limited circumstances. This is the very process our Founding 
Fathers envisioned.
  In fact, the records from the Constitutional Convention in August 
1787 make this abundantly clear. There was much debate during this 
convention regarding how much authority should be in the hands of the 
President with respect to actually initiating military action. The 
Convention's participants carefully decided the President should not be 
given the power to decide with whom this Nation should go to war or to 
undertake aggressive actions without the consent of Congress. The 
President's powers to initiate military action were to be for the 
purpose of repelling sudden attacks--and this is the language I have 
used in this legislation.
  As Constitutional Convention delegate James Wilson explained to the 
Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

       This system will not hurry us into war, it is calculated to 
     guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single 
     man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.

  To state the obvious, Iran is not Iraq. The President has no 
authority to begin unilateral military operations against Iran. In this 
regard, I strongly urge my colleagues to consider that the issue before 
us is not simply policies with respect to Iran but the proper 
procedures with respect to how we as a government lead the United 
States.
  This is far less a matter of possible differences between Republicans 
and Democrats than it is our mutual concern for protecting the rightful 
place of the legislative branch in determining the interests of the 
country and the possible consequences of further military action. In 
this regard, I point out that the principal sponsor of similar 
legislation in the other body is Congressman Walter Jones, a 
Republican, from North Carolina.
  On the one hand, the administration assures us it has no intention of 
launching military operations against Iran. On the other, the 
administration tells us all options remain on the table, at a time when 
our military buildup in the region continues to grow rapidly. While we 
see encouraging diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iraq, it is 
important that we clarify formally the perimeter of our immediate 
military interests in the Middle East.
  It is time we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, 
and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper 
robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the 
region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our 
ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and, finally, 
to focus on the true strategic challenges that face us around the 
world.

  I hope my colleagues will take note of the news articles today in the 
media around the world that show China again has increased its defense 
budget by double digits last year to the tune of 18 percent. These are 
strategic challenges the United States is ignoring at its peril as it 
remains paralyzed in the Middle East.
  I believe the American people will welcome this legislation. This 
administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option 
again and again, while never matching the quality of our military's 
performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the 
President's signing statement accompanying the 2002 congressional 
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this 
administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority 
to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.
  In signing that 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the 
Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use 
of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the 
question of a threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress 
merely happen to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply 
a gesture of additional support rather than as having any legitimate 
authority. He stated, and I think it is worth noting:

       My signing this resolution does not constitute any change 
     in the President's constitutional authority to use force to 
     deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to 
     the United States interests.

  This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually 
nothing. It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate 
attack or conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. 
Let us match up a couple of those words. The President is saying, for 
instance, he possesses the authority to use force to deter threats to 
U.S. interests. How does one use force to deter a threat rather than 
responding to it? What kind of U.S. interest is worthy of the use of 
force? Most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the 
historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief's power to repel 
attacks or to conduct military operations once they have been approved 
by the Congress?
  During our recent hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations, I asked both the Secretary of State, and the Deputy 
Secretary of State during his confirmation hearings, for a 
clarification of this paragraph. My question was whether this 
administration believes it has the authority to conduct unilateral 
military operations against Iran in the absence of a direct attack or a 
compelling immediate threat, without the consent of the Congress. Both 
wrote me lengthy letters in reply but neither could give me a clear 
response.
  The situation we now face is that the administration repeatedly 
states it seeks no war with Iran at the same time it claims the 
authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues a military 
buildup in the region. The legislation I introduce today is intended to 
clarify this ambiguity. In so doing, the Congress will be properly 
restating its constitutional relationship

[[Page S2603]]

with the executive branch, the Congress will be reinstituting its 
historical role as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy, and the 
Congress will be reassuring the American people that there will be no 
more shooting from the hip when it comes to the gravely serious 
question of when we send our military people into harm's way.
  I emphasize that this bill will not take any military operations off 
the table nor will it tie the hands of the administration if our 
military forces are actually attacked from Iranian soil or its 
territorial waters or by forces that retreat into Iranian territory. 
Nor does this legislation let Iran off the hook in terms of our 
insistence that Iran become a more responsible nation, including our 
positions regarding Iran's nuclear program and Iran's recognition of 
Israel's right to exist.
  I was one of the early voices warning that in terms of national 
security Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq. This was one of the 
reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq in the first place. All of the 
options regarding Iran remain on the table. The question is in what 
context these options should be debated, alongside other options 
designed to eventually open Iran and bring it responsibly into the 
world community. In my view, and in terms of the constitutional 
process, absent a direct attack or a clearly imminent threat, the place 
for that debate is here in the open forum of the Congress and not in 
some closed-door meeting at the White House.
  It is my hope we can take up this necessary legislation either in the 
format in which I have introduced it today or as an amendment to the 
2007 supplemental appropriations bill, which we will consider in the 
next few weeks. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and I would welcome their support.
                                 ______