[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.

                          ____________________