[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 109 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4619-S4621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDMENT NO. 883 TO S. 1790
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Udall
amendment No. 883.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 883 to S. 1790, as
amended.
Mr. UDALL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as amended, is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit unauthorized military operations in or against
Iran)
At the end of subtitle C of title XII of the amendment, add
the following:
SEC. 1226. PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED MILITARY OPERATIONS
AGAINST IRAN.
(a) In General.--No funds authorized by this Act may be
used to conduct hostilities against the Government of Iran,
against the Armed Forces of Iran, or in the territory of
Iran.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed--
(1) to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces
to defend against an attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces;
(2) to limit the obligations under the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.); or
(3) to affect the provisions of an Act or a joint
resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such
hostilities that is enacted after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Mr. UDALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the criticisms
of the Udall amendment that I believe are misleading and deserve a
response.
To start, I want to point out an area of agreement. The opposition
says our amendment is simple, and it agrees on its intent--that this
amendment would prohibit a war with Iran without there being
congressional approval, and that is what the vote is about. The
arguments from those in the opposition mislead to avoid that simple
truth. They are trying to create excuses for why we should ignore the
Constitution and open the door to war with Iran without having a vote.
President
[[Page S4620]]
Trump has said he was 10 minutes away from doing just that.
Here is some of what we have heard. Critics say we only have one
Commander in Chief, not 535, and so we should not pass this amendment.
We agree. We only have one Commander in Chief, but the Commander in
Chief executes wars. Only Congress can declare them. Our Founders made
that decision for good reason. Dictators and Kings declare war
unilaterally. Democracies don't. In our democracy, the people decide
whether we go to war or whether we don't go to war through their
elected representatives. Congress is the most direct voice of the
people.
Once that decision has been made, then it is up to one Commander in
Chief to execute that war. The people of New Mexico did not send me
here to be a battalion commander or a general, and I have no intention
of acting like one. The people of New Mexico sent me here to do my
constitutional duty, and article I, section 8 vests the power of
declaring war with the Congress.
Critics also falsely say our amendment limits our forces' ability to
defend themselves or take incoming fire before they can respond. The
majority leader said our amendment defines ``self-defense'' too
narrowly.
I am confused at what he is referring to. Our amendment does not
include a separate definition of ``self-defense.'' Our amendment
expressly states that it does not restrict ``the use of the United
States Armed Forces to defend against attack.'' This language does not,
in any way, change the Department of Defense's rules of engagement that
guide how to exercise our inherent right of self-defense. The DOD does
not require a unit to absorb an attack before it can defend itself, and
neither does our amendment.
The only restriction in the amendment is that the President cannot
enter into hostilities without having congressional approval. It is a
restriction that is embedded in our Constitution. If the Republicans
are proposing to do away with that restriction, I agree with my
colleague Senator Merkley that they must come to the floor and propose
a constitutional amendment to do so.
Our forces in Iraq, Bahrain, and other locations in the Middle East
are fully capable and empowered to defend themselves, and this
amendment does not affect that. Unfortunately, the opposition is just
repeating itself, trying to generate a reason to abdicate its own
constitutional duty.
We have also heard criticism that this amendment is ``appeasing the
Ayatollahs'' and represents ``weakness'' and that we must allow the
President to launch military action to be tough.
We have heard these kinds of arguments before. They were very common
in the run up to the disastrous Iraq war. Do not question the arguments
for war. To do so is to be weak.
I could not disagree more.
Our Constitution is our strength, and this amendment simply reaffirms
our Constitution in the face of a President who is threatening to flout
it. Our Nation is strong when we are united. We do not need to give up
congressional authority over war and peace to one man, the President,
in order to be strong.
Congress has authorized military action before, and when majorities
believe that the circumstances warrant it, Congress will do so again.
If we fear Iran so much that we are willing to walk away from the
constitutional requirements to authorize military action, that would be
the real sign of weakness.
We have also heard that we cannot rely on Congress to authorize force
if we need it to. We heard that Congress can barely name a post office.
So how can we trust it with this kind of decision? What if Congress is
out of town and cannot vote?
First, it is disappointing to hear Members of the Senate speak so
cynically about this body on the floor during a debate as important as
this. The Congress does not function perfectly. That is very true. Yet
history is clear that Congress has authorized military force many times
in the past. I have supported some, and I have opposed others, but we
had debates and votes. Only recently has the 2001 authorization been so
abused to authorize military action all over the globe--far beyond the
al-Qaida and Afghanistan mission that Congress thought it was voting
on.
Congress, though, has had these debates and has voted, and those
decisions represent our national decisions. I see no reason to turn our
back on our Constitution just because Iran is a regional threat and
this administration has manufactured a crisis to exacerbate that
threat.
If there is a national security crisis that requires Congress to vote
on military force, we can all get on a plane and come to Washington and
do our jobs. Maybe we will even have a vote on Friday. Congress voted
after Pearl Harbor, and Congress voted after 9/11. Both were in the
middle of national crises. Our troops will be the ones making real
sacrifices. We can bear the cost of some inconvenient recess travel.
Our job is to debate and vote on matters of war and peace--period, end
of story.
We have also heard that the Department of Defense is opposed to our
amendment.
Yesterday, Mr. John Rood, the Under Secretary for Policy at the
Department of Defense, sent a letter to the leaders of the Armed
Services Committee in its opposition to our amendment. The letter is
short, and while it contains speculation and rhetoric, it includes no
legal analysis and fails to address the plain language of the amendment
or longstanding DOD authority or rules of engagement.
I am disappointed in the letter, but it should not be a surprise from
a political appointee from the Trump administration, not when the
President is openly declaring that he needs no authority from Congress
to launch a war against Iran. The letter reads that the amendment
``purports to limit the President's authority in discharging his
responsibility as Commander in Chief,'' which is simply false.
The amendment straightforwardly affirms the constitutional authority
of Congress to authorize military action--authority that the President
is openly flouting in his public comments.
If Congress authorizes military action against Iran, the Commander in
Chief would be free to execute it.
The letter asserts, without evidence, that our amendment will
embolden Iran. I hope we are not so weak that we think our Constitution
emboldens Iran.
Overall, the letter cites nothing--the Constitution, no law, no DOD
policy, no legal analysis, nothing--in support of its claims.
This letter from DOD, which lacks a confirmed Secretary, is a
disappointment, but it should not be read as any authoritative take on
this amendment, its intent, or its effect.
Some have said that this amendment would block the United States from
helping Israel defend itself from an Iranian attack. I support Israel's
right to defend itself, and this argument does not hold up.
First, this amendment has no impact on our ongoing security
assistance and cooperation with Israel, including the recent MOU signed
with Israel by President Obama.
Second, if Israel is attacked, there is nothing in this amendment
that would prohibit the United States from coming to its aid with
defensive measures.
Third, if Israel is attacked and the United States wants to send our
military to engage in direct hostilities, we are going to need to
debate and authorize any response in Congress. That is simply what the
Constitution says.
Finally, the biggest risk of Iranian attacks on Israel, according to
one Israeli Cabinet Minister last month, is the escalating tension
between the United States and Iran.
The best thing we can do to protect Israel is diplomacy to stop a
broader regional war in the Middle East. If the United States does go
to war with Iran, Israel is likely to face very serious threats, and
that is something we should take seriously if we consider the use of
force.
Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said in May that ``things are
heating up'' in the Persian Gulf.
He said:
If there's some sort of conflagration between Iran and the
United States, between Iran and its neighbors, I'm not ruling
out that they will activate Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad from
Gaza, or even that they will try to fire missiles from Iran
at the State of Israel.
So the threats to Israel from Iran only make it more important that
we have a full debate and vote on military action, not less important.
[[Page S4621]]
Again, the purpose of our amendment is simple: The President is
threatening to launch military action against Iran without
authorization, publicly flouting Congress. This amendment says that we
are not going to go into an unauthorized war with Iran.
If the President and Members of this body think we need to take
military action against Iran, then let's have that debate and let's
vote.
The Udall amendment ensures we follow the constitutional process. To
do otherwise is to be in dereliction of our constitutional duty.
Mr. ROMNEY. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?
Mr. UDALL. The Senator from New Mexico yields the floor.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the perspective and
sincere thoughts and ideas coming from my good friend from New Mexico.
The Senator indicated that those who oppose this are trying to create
excuses for why we should ignore the Constitution.
I would note that in my remarks this morning I noted specifically
that this is not an authorization to use military force against Iran or
anyone else. It is a statement of continued commitment to our national
defense, and, precisely, it is saying that under the Constitution only
Congress may declare war. That is something I said specifically.
But the Senator goes on to note--he says that only the Congress--
specifically, his words are ``ignore the Constitution, open the door to
war with Iran without a vote.''
President Trump has said he was 10 minutes away from doing just that.
Is the Senator saying that if the President were to do what he was
contemplating, and that is to take out missile batteries with the
potential of the loss of life of as many of 150, but also it could be
with a prewarning, with no loss of life, but taking out missile
batteries that have fired upon an American aircraft--unmanned American
aircraft--if he were to have done that in response to their shooting
down an aircraft in international airspace, that constitutes going to
war and would have required a vote of Congress to authorize shooting
down or attacking missile batteries that have fired rockets at an
American airship?
I am referring to the Senator's comments precisely, and I will read
the entire point.
The Senator said: ``They are trying to create excuses for why we
should ignore the Constitution and open the door to war with Iran
without a vote.''
President Trump has said that he was 10 minutes away from doing just
that. So in the Senator's view, is responding in a very limited manner,
as he was contemplating, taking out missile batteries potentially--
would that have constituted going to war and required the vote of
Congress?
That is my question, because I believe that is not the case. I
believe the President has the constitutional authority and duty to
respond, if necessary, in an appropriate way to return fire on the very
batteries that have shot down an American aircraft.
I yield the floor.
____________________