[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S213-S214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last week we were very close to an act of 
war between the United States and Iran. I must tell you, we have been 
talking about this potential threat for a long time. I am a member of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have held numerous meetings 
in our discussion about the fact that there is no authorization for the 
use of military force by the United States against Iran that has been 
approved by Congress. I remember, during hearings, listening to 
administrative witnesses who said: Well, there is no intent to use 
force against Iran.
  Well, Congress did not act. Even though, I must tell you, several of 
our colleagues, including this Senator, had urged us to take up an 
authorization for the use of military force in regards to the problems 
in the Middle East, there was no action taken. I want to applaud 
Senator Kaine, who has been working on this for several years, and our 
former colleague Senator Flake, who did everything they could to bring 
a bipartisan discussion and action in regards to exercising 
congressional responsibility on the use of force by our military.
  Well, we now know that this is a real threat, that we may be going to 
war without Congress's involvement, which is contrary not only to our 
Constitution but to the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. So I want to 
thank Senator Kaine and Senator Lee for filing S.J. Res. 68, a 
bipartisan resolution. I hope it will receive the expedited process 
that is envisioned in the War Powers Resolution, and I hope that we 
will have a chance to act on this in the next few days. It is our 
responsibility--Congress's responsibility--to commit our troops to 
combat, and it rests squarely with the legislative branch of 
government.
  Let me first cite the Constitution of the United States. You hear a 
lot of discussion about the Constitution here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress 
has the power to declare war.
  Now, that was challenged in the 1970s, after Congress had passed the 
Gulf of Tonkin resolution in regards to our presence in Vietnam.
  It was passed in an innocent way to protect American troops and ships 
that were in that region, but as we know, that resolution was used as 
justification by President Johnson and others to expand our involvement 
in Vietnam and, ultimately, led to a very active and costly war for the 
United States--and lengthy war, I might add.
  In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act. It wasn't easy. 
President Nixon vetoed it. We overrode the veto in a bipartisan vote in 
the U.S. Congress. We did that because of the abuse of power during the 
Vietnam war.
  Let me read what the War Powers Act provides because it is very 
telling in regard to what we saw last week in regard to Iran, a little 
over a week ago now. It requires consultation with Congress by the 
President ``in every possible instance before committing troops to 
war.'' No. 1, it requires the President to consult with us before he 
commits any of our troops to an engagement. No. 2, the President is 
required to report within 48 hours ``into hostilities or into 
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
indicated by the circumstances.'' So it provides for the imminent 
involvement or threat to the United States.

[[Page S214]]

  No. 3, the President is ``required to end foreign military action 
after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an 
authorization for the operation to continue.''
  We now know that to be an AUMF, an authorization for the use of 
military force.
  Let's fast forward from the passage of that bill in 1973 to rein in 
the abuse of power by the Executive during the Vietnam war. Let's fast 
forward to what happened in early January, on January 2, when President 
Trump ordered the action against Soleimani in Baghdad and took out his 
life.
  Let me start off by saying, none of us has any sorrow over the loss 
of General Soleimani. He was a bad guy. He was responsible for the 
deaths of hundreds of people. He was very much a person who should have 
been held accountable for his activities, but there is a reason for our 
constitutional protections of checks and balances as it relates to the 
use of military force by the United States.
  The Commander in Chief has certain powers. Congress has certain 
powers. The Framers of our Constitution intentionally provided for 
there to be a robust discussion and debate between the legislature and 
the Executive on war and peace; that we should have that open 
discussion; and that, in many cases, diplomacy needs to be pursued much 
more aggressively before we use our military might; that our national 
security interest in keeping America safe rests with these checks and 
balances. Again, to bring it to current times in regard to the 
circumstances with Iran, every witness I have listened to, every expert 
I have talked to with regard to the Middle East, says it is in the U.S. 
national security interest to find a diplomatic way to handle our 
issues in regard to Iran; that a military option would be very costly, 
a long time, and, most likely, counterproductive with the United States 
having to keep its troops in that region for a very long time.
  Diplomacy is clearly the preferred path. These constitutional 
provisions provide us with an opportunity to be able to make sure we do 
what is in the best interest of American national security.
  Trump ordered this attack, and the Senate now needs to act, as we saw 
in the 1970s when Congress did act. Let me start with the War Powers 
Act and how President Trump had violated the War Powers Act in all 
three of the provisions I mentioned earlier.
  First, was there an imminent involvement or threat? We have all now 
heard the explanations given by this administration. It was short on 
detail. It was basically the general concerns. What is most disturbing, 
we now read press accounts that the President had been planning for 
months--or the generals had been planning and going over with the 
President for months whether they should take out General Soleimani.
  If they had been planning for months, why didn't they consult with 
Congress, as required under the War Powers Act? Violation No. 1 to the 
War Powers Act: Congress was not consulted by President Trump.
  No. 2, there are two violations so far; the fact that there wasn't an 
imminent threat and the fact that there was no consultation with 
Congress--two violations of the War Powers Act. Then, if he continues 
to use force beyond the 60 days, he has to come to Congress and get 
authorization or he has to remove the troops.
  Does anyone here believe the President will not hesitate again to use 
force against Iran? Yet there are no intentions to submit a resolution.
  We find the President has violated the War Powers Act in three ways: 
first, by having no evidence of imminent threat; second, by not 
consulting with Congress before the attack; and third, by not 
submitting to us an authorization for the use of military force.
  There are some who say the President already has that authority under 
the authorizations for the use of military force that were passed by 
Congress after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001.

  We are getting to 18 years beyond when that attack took place and 
those authorizations passed, but let me go through them. The one that 
is cited the most by the President is the 2002, which is to ``defend 
the national security of the United States against the continuing 
threat posed by Iraq.''
  First, let me say, I voted against that resolution, and I believe 
that was the correct vote, but I think almost everybody in this body 
would say that authorization is no longer relevant. Since that 
resolution was passed, the United States has worked with Iraq and has 
worked with the Government of Iraq. This is a country we try to do 
business with, so they no longer present the threat that was supposedly 
present when this resolution was passed. Even to get beyond that, what 
does Iran have to do with Iraq? I understand they may start with the 
first letter ``I,'' but there is no relationship here. Under any 
stretch of the imagination, there is no way you can use the 2002 
resolution.
  Let's go to the 2001 resolution that was passed on the authorization 
for use of military force. That was immediately after the attack on 
September 11: `` . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force 
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, 
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.''
  There is absolutely zero connection between that language and General 
Soleimani or Iran as it relates to 9/11, and I think no one could make 
that connection.
  I understand that 2001 has been misused by many administrations. 
There is no question, I would concur in that conclusion, but in all of 
those cases, they tried to connect dots. There is no connection of dots 
here whatsoever.
  As we saw in the late 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam, when we had the 
Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was passed to defend our assets in the 
Vietnam area--in the Gulf of Tonkin--how it was used by administrations 
to commit us to a long, engaged military operations. Here, one cannot 
argue that there is even a semblance of authorization that has been 
passed by Congress as it relates to Iran.
  We also know the President is violating the War Powers Act, and he is 
likely to use force again in violation of our Constitution and the War 
Powers Act.
  It was my generation that paid a very heavy price because of the 
Vietnam war. I lost a lot of my high school classmates in the Vietnam 
war. Let us not exceed our responsibility under the Constitution or 
allow the President to exceed his. We need to act. The Senate needs to 
act. We don't need another endless war.
  The resolution before us allows us to do what is responsible. I am 
going to quote from the resolution that Senator Kaine has filed, S.J. 
Res. 68: `` . . . the President to terminate the use of United States 
Armed Forces for hostilities against . . . Iran or any part of its 
government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration 
of war or specific authorization for use of military force against 
Iran.''
  By the way, the resolution also provides that we always have the 
right to defend ourselves from an imminent threat, provided that it is 
an imminent threat, and that we comply with the War Powers Act--I am 
adding this--that was passed by Congress.
  The President has a long track record of exceeding his constitutional 
authority on matters of foreign policy. We cannot afford to become 
accustomed or complacent in the face of those excesses. It is our 
responsibility to carry out our constitutional responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support S.J. Res. 68 when we have a 
chance to vote on that, I hope, within the next few days.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________