[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1051-S1062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES 
 AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY 
                           CONGRESS--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S.J. Res. 68, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 68) to direct the removal of 
     United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by 
     Congress.

  Pending:

       Cramer (for Cruz) Amendment No. 1301, to amend the 
     findings.
       Cramer (for Reed) Amendment No. 1322, to amend the 
     findings.
       Cramer (for Cotton) Amendment No. 1305, to exempt from the 
     termination requirement United States Armed Forces engaged in 
     operations directed at designated terrorist organizations.
       Cramer (for Risch) Amendment No. 1314, to amend the 
     findings.
       Cramer (for Rubio/Risch) Amendment No. 1320, to amend the 
     findings.
       Cramer (for Sullivan) Amendment No. 1319, to amend the rule 
     of construction.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The majority leader is 
recognized.


                         Tribute to Bob Swanner

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, I offered thanks to 
a long list of Senate officers and staff who helped this body fulfill 
our unique constitutional responsibilities in recent weeks, but we are 
soon saying goodbye to one of those distinguished servants of the U.S. 
Senate. So I would like to begin this morning by sharing my gratitude 
and the whole Senate's gratitude for Bob Swanner.
  Bob first joined the staff of the Senate Recording Studio more than 
two decades ago. Back then, he was already somewhat of an expert in 
designing and constructing television and radio studios. In fact, I 
understand that his record was so impressive that he was offered the 
job on the spot, and as anyone knows who has worked with Bob for even a 
few minutes, he has spent every day since then demonstrating how lucky 
we were to have him on board.
  By his second year on the job, Bob had already successfully 
spearheaded the transition of Senate broadcasts to high-definition TV, 
and he didn't stop there. Over the past two decades, Bob has guided the 
overhaul of the camera and audio systems in every Senate hearing room. 
He masterminded the design of the new Senate Recording Studio's 
facilities in the Capitol Visitor Center, and he has made sure that 
speeches here on the floor are delivered under only the best TV 
lighting.
  Let's face it--Hollywood, this place is not. Frankly, capturing a 
U.S. Senator's ``good side'' is not always an easy assignment, but as 
Bob knows better than anyone, our audio-visual capabilities in this 
institution are not about glamor; they are about civics. They are about 
making sure the American people can look and listen to their 
government.

[[Page S1052]]

  Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the small fact that Presidential 
inaugurations take place here on the Capitol grounds as well. Not long 
after Bob was promoted to general manager of the Recording Studio came 
the 2017 inauguration--one big professional challenge after another and 
one success after another on behalf of the institution that Bob has 
served.
  It is no surprise that Bob's colleagues at the Recording Studio are 
sorry to see him go. The Senate is better for his dedicated efforts 
over these many years, but he will begin his well-deserved retirement 
with our sincere thanks for a job well done.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, it has been 1 
week since the Senate concluded the third Presidential trial in 
American history.
  Things move quickly in Washington, as always, so it is natural that 
our focus is now shifting to the many policy subjects where we have 
more work to do for families all across our country.
  But when the Senate acts, we do not only address the particular issue 
before us; we create lasting precedent. This is especially true during 
something as grave and uncommon as an impeachment trial. Just as 
citizens, scholars, and Senators ourselves studied the past precedents 
of 1868 and 1999, so will future generations examine what unfolded over 
the past few months.
  So before we adjourn for the upcoming State work period and leave 
impeachment fully in the rearview mirror, I wanted to speak about it 
one more time--not about the particulars that have been so exhaustively 
discussed and debated but the deeper questions, to record some final 
observations for the future.
  The Senate did its job. We protected the long-term future of our 
Republic. We kept the temporary fires of factionalism from burning 
through to the bedrock of our institutions. We acted as Madison 
wished--as an ``impediment'' against ``improper acts.'' The Framers' 
firewall held the line.
  But in this case, all is not well that ends well. We cannot forget 
the abuses that fueled this process. We cannot make light of the 
dangerous new precedents set by President Trump's opponents in their 
zeal to impeach at all costs. We need to remember what happened so we 
can avoid it ever happening again.
  As we know, the leftwing drive to impeach President Trump predated--
predated--any phone call to Ukraine--and, in fact, his inauguration. 
This isn't a Republican talking point; it is what was reported by 
outlets like POLITICO and the Washington Post. House Democrats barely 
tried to hide that they began with a guilty verdict and were simply 
shopping for a suitable crime.
  So, unfortunately, it was predictable that the House majority would 
use the serious process of impeachment as a platform to politically 
attack the President. It was less predictable that they would also 
attack our Nation's core institutions themselves. But that is what 
happened.
  First, the House Democrats chose to degrade their body's own 
precedents. The majority sprinted through a slapdash investigation to 
meet arbitrary political deadlines. They trivialized the role of the 
House Judiciary Committee, the body traditionally charged with 
conducting impeachment inquiries. They sidelined their own Republican 
minority colleagues and the President's counsel to precedent-breaking 
degrees.
  All of this was very regrettable, but from a purely practical 
perspective, breaking the House's own china was Speaker Pelosi's 
prerogative. What was truly outrageous is what came next--a rolling 
attack on the other institutions outside the House.
  To begin with, the recklessly broad Articles of Impeachment were an 
attack not just on one President but on the Office of the Presidency 
itself.
  Their first article criticized the alleged motivation behind a 
Presidential action but failed to frame their complaint as definable 
``high Crimes [or] Misdemeanors.'' This House set out into unchartered 
constitutional waters by passing the first-ever Presidential 
impeachment that did not allege any violations of criminal statutes.
  Clearly, they owed the Senate and the country a clear limiting 
principle to explain why removal on these grounds would be different 
from the malleable and subjective ``maladministration'' standard, which 
the Framers rejected as a ground for impeachment. But they offered no 
such thing.
  And their second article sought to criminalize the normal and routine 
exercise of executive privileges that Presidents of both parties have 
rightly invoked throughout our history. This was, in effect, 
criminalizing the separation of powers themselves.
  So the House articles would have sharply diminished the Presidency in 
our constitutional structure. To extract a pound of flesh from one 
particular President, House Democrats were willing to attack the office 
itself.
  But it did not stop with the House and the Presidency. Next in the 
crosshairs came the Senate.
  The very night the House passed the articles, the Speaker began an 
unprecedented effort to reach outside her own Chamber and dictate the 
contours of the Senate trial to Senators. The bizarre stunt of 
withholding the articles achieved, of course, nothing, but the irony 
was enormous.
  The House had just spent weeks jealously guarding their ``sole 
power'' of impeachment and criticizing other branches for perceived 
interference. Indeed, this reasoning was the entire basis for their 
second Article of Impeachment, but their first act out of the gate was 
to try to bust constitutional guardrails and meddle in the Senate.
  When that stunt went nowhere and the trial began, House Democrats 
brought their war on institutions over to this Chamber. From the very 
first evening, it was clear the House managers would not even try to 
persuade a supermajority of Senators but simply sought to degrade and 
smear the Senate itself before the Nation. Senators were called 
``treacherous'' for not structuring our proceedings to the managers' 
liking.
  Finally, when the trial neared its end and it became clear that 
bullying the Senate would not substitute for persuading it, the 
campaign against institutions took aim at yet another independent 
branch--the Supreme Court--in particular, the Chief Justice of the 
United States.
  A far-left pressure group produced ads impugning him for presiding 
neutrally--neutrally--and not seizing control of the Senate. One 
Democratic Senator running for President made the Chief Justice read a 
pointless question gainsaying his own ``legitimacy.''

  So, in summary, the opponents of this President were willing to throw 
mud at the House, the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court--
all for the sake of short-term partisan politics.
  The irony would be rich if it were less sad. For years, this 
President's opponents have sought to cloak their rage in the high-
minded trappings of institutionalism. The President's opponents profess 
great concern for the norms and traditions of our government. But when 
it really counted--when the rubber met the road--that talk proved 
cheap. It was they who proved willing to degrade public confidence in 
our government. It was they who indulged political bloodlust at the 
expense of our institutions: reckless--reckless--insinuations that our 
2016 election was not legitimate; further insinuations--right here on 
the floor--that if the American people reelect this President in 2020, 
the result will be presumptively illegitimate as well; bizarre 
statements from the Speaker of the House that she may simply deny 
reality and refuse to accept the Senate's verdict as final.
  There has been much discussion about the foreign adversaries who seek 
to reduce the American people's faith in our democracy and cause chaos 
and division in our country--rightly so--but we must also demand that 
our own political leaders exercise some self-restraint and not do the 
work of our adversaries for them.
  The critics of our Constitution often say that because our Framers 
could not have imagined modern conditions, their work is outmoded. We 
hear that the First Amendment or the Second Amendment or the separation 
of powers must be changed to suit the times.
  But the geniuses who founded this Nation were actually very 
prescient. Case in point: The reckless partisan crusade of recent weeks 
is something they predicted more than two centuries

[[Page S1053]]

ago. Hamilton predicted ``the demon of faction will, at certain 
seasons, extend his scepter'' over the House of Representatives. He 
predicted that partisan anger could produce ``an intemperate or 
designing majority in the House of Representatives,'' capable of 
destroying the separation of powers if left unchecked.
  The Framers predicted overheated House majorities might lash out at 
their peer institutions and display ``strong symptoms of impatience and 
disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if 
the exercise of . . . rights, by either the executive or judiciary, 
were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.'' 
They knew the popular legislature might be ``disposed to exert an 
imperious control over the other departments.''
  They predicted all of this. They predicted it all.
  So they did something about it. They set up a firewall. They built 
the Senate.
  This body performed admirably these past weeks. We did precisely the 
job we were made for.
  We did precisely the job we were made for, but impeachment should 
never have come to the Senate like this. This most serious 
constitutional tool should never have been used so lightly--as a 
political weapon of first resort, as a tool to lash out at the basic 
bedrock of our institutions because one side did not get their way.
  It should never have happened, and it should never happen again.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             March for Life

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on January 24, tens of thousands of pro-
life Americans filled the streets of Washington, DC, for the annual 
March for Life. Unfortunately, I couldn't come down to the floor to 
talk about the march because the Senate was tied up with the 
impeachment trial, although I did get the opportunity to meet with some 
marchers from Rapid City, SD. Now that the floor is open again, I 
wanted to come down to recognize this year's marchers, including those 
from my home State of South Dakota, and talk about why they march.
  Every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are 
killed by abortion--hundreds of thousands. That is not some number the 
pro-life movement has cooked up. That is straight from the pro-abortion 
Guttmacher Institute, formerly affiliated with Planned Parenthood, 
which reports that ``approximately 862,320 abortions were performed in 
2017.'' That is 862,320. Most of us can't even fathom what a number 
that big looks like, but that is a lot of babies, because, of course, 
that is what we are talking about--babies, human beings.
  Proponents of abortion try to deny the humanity of the unborn child, 
but science and ultrasound and common sense all make it very clear that 
when we talk about unborn children, we are talking about human beings, 
with their own fingerprints and their own DNA. Human beings deserve to 
be protected, even when they are small and weak and vulnerable--
especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable.
  Stick around politics long enough and you are sure to hear someone 
talking about the importance of being on the right side of history. It 
is a common trope, but it is no less true for that. The truth is, we 
should think about being on the right side of history. When people look 
back at us, we want to be remembered for standing up for what is right, 
not for going along with injustice.
  Abortion repeats a tired pattern. One group of people or society 
decides that another group of people is less valuable. They advance 
plausible-sounding reasons why it is legitimate to deprive these people 
of their human rights, and for various reasons people in that society 
go along with it. It is a story that has been repeated too many times, 
and the judgment of history never looks kindly on these societies.
  The United States was founded to safeguard human rights. We haven't 
always lived up to that promise, but we have never stopped trying. It 
is time for America to start standing up for the rights of unborn 
humans.
  Last week, in his State of the Union Address, the President called 
for a ban on late-term abortions. In 2016, somewhere around 11,000 
babies were aborted at or after the 21-week mark in pregnancy--11,000 
in 1 year. That is a lot of babies.
  As neonatal science advances, we have been able to save babies born 
at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy. Babies have survived after 
being born at 25 weeks, at 24 weeks, at 23 weeks, and, like Ellie 
Schneider, who attended the State of the Union Address with her mom, at 
21 weeks. Yet, in this country it is legal to kill babies at 40 weeks, 
right up until the very last moment of pregnancy. That makes no sense.
  How can a child born at 23 weeks be regarded as a human being, 
deserving of care, and yet an unborn child who is that very same age be 
regarded as less than human? The moment of birth does not magically 
confer humanity, and yet our law acts like it does.
  I would like to think that a bill to ban late-term abortions like the 
President proposed would be a no-brainer in Congress. At the very, very 
least, we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't be aborting 
babies who can live outside their mothers. But, unfortunately, abortion 
extremism has grown to such an extent that leading Democrats, including 
a Democrat Presidential candidate, not only rule out banning late-term 
abortions, but they actually refused to rule out infanticide.
  Last year, after the Democrat Governor of Virginia implicitly 
endorsed infanticide, the Senate took up legislation that simply stated 
that a baby born alive in an abortion clinic is entitled to the same 
protection and medical care that a baby born in a hospital is entitled 
to, and 44 Democrats, almost the entire Democrat caucus here in the 
Senate, voted against that legislation. It was a grim day for human 
decency and for human rights.
  Although we have a long way to go to protect unborn babies in this 
country, I remain hopeful, and I am never more hopeful than when I see 
tens of thousands of Americans--so many of them young people--descend 
on our Nation's Capital every year to march for life. We may not win 
this battle today or tomorrow, but we are turning the tide. The arc of 
the moral universe is long, but I believe that it does bend toward 
justice and in the end right will prevail. I look forward to the day 
when every child born and unborn is protected in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              S.J. Res. 68

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on a 
bipartisan War Powers Resolution offered by Senator Kaine directing the 
President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities 
against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war. The 
President has no authority to enter the United States into another 
endless conflict in the Middle East, but I fear that the President's 
erratic decision-making, his lack of strategy, his inability to control 
his impulses may bumble us into a war nonetheless, even if he doesn't 
intend it.
  With this bipartisan resolution, the Senate will assert its 
constitutional authority and send a clear bipartisan message that the 
President--this President or any President--cannot sidestep Congress 
when it comes to matters of war and peace. It is important to do this 
now.
  The President's actions in the Middle East have escalated the 
confrontation. Before the State of the Union, the President himself 
said that war with Iran was ``closer than you thought''--

[[Page S1054]]

his words. Now, let me be clear, nobody in this Chamber will shed a 
single tear over the death of Iranian General Soleimani, but that 
doesn't mean that we disregard the potential consequences of the strike 
or any comparable action. It is more than appropriate for Congress to 
affirm that it has authority over any major long-term hostilities with 
Iran, as the Constitution prescribes.
  Yet, still, some on the other side have claimed that this War Powers 
Resolution is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to embarrass 
President Trump. The Founding Fathers would laugh at that assertion. 
One of the great powers they gave Congress--not the executive--was the 
power to declare war. This resolution is partisan? Well, then, why are 
a good number of Republicans supporting it?
  Let me say this again. This resolution is going to pass with a 
bipartisan majority of Senators in support--a rarity these days. If 
this is purely an attempt to embarrass the President, well, it is going 
to be a bipartisan one.
  We need to stop pretending as if both sides of the aisle aren't 
concerned about the President having too much leeway over matters of 
war and peace. That is why this resolution is bipartisan, because both 
sides of the aisle agree that for too long Congress has ceded our 
constitutional authority to the executive branch, and we are taking an 
important step today to claim that authority back.
  Now, today there will be amendments offered that will seek to do one 
thing and one thing only: undermine what we are trying to achieve today 
and provide the President's lawyers with get-out-of-jail free cards. My 
colleague from Arkansas has an amendment that will create an exception 
for operations against foreign terrorist organizations. It sounds 
reasonable at first, but any enterprising lawyer in the administration 
could use this amendment to justify the type of unilateral escalation 
of hostilities that this legislation would prohibit. My colleague from 
Florida has an amendment that seeks a similar outcome. My friends on 
both sides who wish this resolution to pass should vote down these 
amendments. They cut against the core of the legislation. Senator Kaine 
told me that if this amendment passed, the Cotton amendment, he would 
be forced to vote against his own bill. What good would that do for 
those of us who want to pass it anyway?
  One final point. With respect to the situation in Iran, we still 
don't have a clear picture from the administration about our strategy 
in the region. The only gesture of transparency that this 
administration has been able to muster was a classified all-Members 
briefing conducted more than a week after the strike. There were 97 
Senators who attended, but only 15 Members got to ask questions before 
the administration, led by Secretary Pompeo, practically sprinted out 
the door with a less-than-genuine commitment to return. Our demands for 
a followup briefing have been ignored by the White House, Secretary 
Esper, and Secretary Pompeo. Those briefings should have occurred 
before the action. I learned about what we were doing in the news, and 
2 hours later got a call from the administration.
  I fear that by keeping Congress and the American people in the dark, 
President Trump may be directing military operations in a manner that 
doesn't stand up to public scrutiny. When you are forced to consult 
with Congress and when Congress has the power to declare war, quick and 
sloppy thinking evaporates because people have to at least examine the 
issues in some detail, and the American public has some say.
  That is why Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution is a matter of 
necessity. I commend Senator Kaine and his colleagues on the job he has 
done, including my colleague from Illinois, sitting right here, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.


                         Department of Justice

  Madam President, now on the Department of Justice. In the short week 
since the conclusion of the President's impeachment trial, the 
President has reminded us of all the reasons why Congress must serve as 
the check on the Executive.
  The President has dismissed members of his administration who 
testified in the House impeachment inquiry, including, for no reason, 
the twin brother of one of the witnesses. The administration has 
reportedly withdrawn the nomination of a senior Pentagon official who 
merely advised her colleagues about the legal implications of delaying 
assistance to Ukraine. Truth--when the President doesn't like the 
truth, it has no place in this administration, and people who speak 
truth to power are summarily dismissed.
  On Tuesday, after career prosecutors made sentencing recommendations 
for Roger Stone, who was found guilty of witness tampering and lying to 
Congress, the President tweeted that his former colleague and confidant 
was being unfairly treated. Soon afterward, it appears the Attorney 
General or other political appointees at DOJ countermanded the 
sentencing recommendation and will instead advise a more lenient 
sentence for the President's friend. As a result, all four career 
prosecutors connected to the Stone case withdrew from the case or 
resigned from the Justice Department entirely--a clear signal they 
believed the revised sentencing conflicted with their professional and 
ethical obligations as prosecutors.
  Of course, it was not enough for the President to just lean on the 
Justice Department to make it easy on his old pal. The President went 
on publicly to attack the judge who would decide Mr. Stone's fate--
another example of the President's blatant contempt for the 
independence of the judiciary.
  In the past, Chief Justice Roberts has spoken out in defense of the 
independence of the judicial branch. When the President, during his 
campaign, attacked Judge Curiel, the Chief Justice released a statement 
saying:

       We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or 
     Clinton judges. We have an extraordinary group of dedicated 
     judges doing their level best to do equal right to those 
     appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something 
     we should all be thankful for.

  That is what Chief Justice Roberts said.
  Well, President Trump is once again attacking a Federal judge--in 
this case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over the Stone 
case. The Nation now looks again to Chief Justice Roberts to make clear 
to President Trump that these attacks are unacceptable. Speaking of the 
independence of the judiciary in broad and general terms is well and 
good. It is a good thing to do, but to not speak up now, when in the 
middle of this brouhaha a judge is being attacked by the President 
before she makes a sentencing decision, that is when we really need the 
Chief Justice to speak up. Now would be the time for Chief Justice 
Roberts to speak up. Now would be the time for the Chief Justice to 
directly and specifically defend the independence of this Federal 
judge. I hope he will see fit to do that and to do it today.
  I have also called on the inspector general of the Justice Department 
to investigate the Roger Stone matter. The Judiciary Committee in the 
Senate should do the same, but even without formal investigation, it is 
abundantly clear that something is rotten in the Justice Department.
  The President can corrupt our Justice Department in two major ways: 
pressuring it to investigate his opponents or using its power to reward 
his friends. The impeachment of the President concerned the first 
abuse: The President wanted a foreign power to announce an 
investigation into one of his political opponents or funnel allegedly 
incriminating information to our Justice Department. The President 
explicitly mentioned the Attorney General during his phone call with 
the Ukrainian President. More recently, Attorney General Barr has 
publicly said that the Justice Department has now set up a channel to 
receive information from the President's personal attorney, Rudy 
Giuliani, about the Ukraine scandal. It seems to be an attempt to 
accomplish the same goals the President was just impeached over.
  The events surrounding Mr. Stone's more lenient sentencing 
recommendations are an example of the second way Presidents can corrupt 
the Justice Department: improperly rewarding the President's friends. 
In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed laws and made crucial reforms 
so this kind of abuse of the levers of power will not happen again, but 
here, right now, the President is using the hallowed Justice 
Department--the only Cabinet agency named for an ideal, Justice--as his 
personal law firm. He is using the Justice

[[Page S1055]]

Department named for an ideal, Justice, as his personal law firm.
  What a shame. What a defamation of what the Constitution is all 
about.
  My Senate colleagues who believed the President would be chastened by 
impeachment have been completely and disastrously wrong. The only 
lesson the President has learned is that there is nothing he can do 
that Senate Republicans will not forgive or rationalize or simply 
ignore. The lesson the President has learned is that the courts are 
unlikely to stop him, too, because the Senate Republican caucus has 
voted to confirm virtually every judge he has nominated, no matter how 
unqualified or ill-suited to the bench.
  We are staring at a crisis of the rule of law. The institutions 
designed to check Executive power are crumbling before our very eyes. 
The crisis was the President's own making, but it was enabled and 
emboldened by every Senate Republican who has been too afraid to stand 
up to the President and say no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 3 minutes in debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 68

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 
68. Senator Kaine, a distinguished member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, has done an extraordinary job here in riveting our attention 
to a congressional responsibility that is paramount. It calls for the 
removal of U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran that Congress has 
not authorized.
  One of the most consequential decisions we make as Members of 
Congress--I have been called on on more than one occasion between the 
House and the Senate--is whether to send our sons and daughters into 
battle. It is a decision that is about life and death and national 
security. The Constitution delegated that power to only one institution 
of the entire Federal Government--the Congress of the United States--to 
declare war, because of the severity of the consequences of the 
decision. It is up to the Congress to ensure that the executive branch, 
whoever sits there at any given time, utilizes all the tools of 
diplomacy it has to keep Americans safe and that there is an effective 
check on executive power before we send our children off to war.
  I stand in strong support of the resolution. This body must assert 
its congressional privilege.
  Of course, the President has the right to take action to defend 
against imminent threats to the homeland and to Americans abroad. No 
one disputes that. Senator Kaine doesn't dispute that. None of us do. 
But the President does not have the authority to engage in any military 
action he likes.
  We have been hearing from this administration that there is a 
redline--Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I agree. But if, at the end 
of the day, that means that to enforce your redline, you are going to 
take America to war, then you must come to the Congress of the United 
States and seek that authorization for war.
  What I hear from the administration: Oh, no, we have article II 
powers. Oh, no, the 2002 resolution--which had nothing to do with Iran. 
Never envisioned. It is so tortured to suggest that is authorization 
for us. Can we sit back and contemplate that possibility? We cannot. We 
cannot.
  So as someone who voted against the war in Iraq and served in 
Congress during the debate on whether to authorize military action, I 
can assure you that the 2002 resolution--that was not its intention, 
and it doesn't comport with the history, the use, or the plain reading 
of the text.
  I am gravely concerned about the administration's efforts to build a 
shaky legal foundation for the explicit purpose of carrying us into 
ever-longer wars, including potentially against Iran.
  Before we vote to ultimately decide that, it should be the Congress 
of the United States that should make that decision on behalf of the 
American people, looking our sons and daughters in the eyes and saying, 
yes, this is worthy of the national security of the United States.
  I will vote to send my son and daughter if the cause is right, but if 
the cause is not right, I will not vote to send my son and daughter or 
anyone else's sons and daughters. That is the debate that should be had 
here. That is what Senator Kaine is trying to do with this resolution. 
I am concerned that some of the amendments being offered are simply to 
undermine that.
  I look forward to joining with Senator Kaine to pass that resolution, 
as well as oppose some of the amendments.
  I will submit a longer statement for the Record on this resolution, 
S.J. Res. 68, and the War Powers Resolution more broadly when we return 
on Monday, February 24. I urge my colleagues to read that statement.
  With that, I yield back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to Cruz amendment No. 1301.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Cruz 
amendment.
  The Cruz amendment is contrary to the purpose of the resolution 
before the body. The resolution before the body is to make sure that 
Congress is involved in decisions about war. The Cruz amendment is 
contrary to that purpose by praising the President for a military 
action taken not only without congressional approval but without 
notification to Congress.
  Second, we are all glad General Soleimani is dead. That is good for 
the world. But there are legitimate questions about the mission--
particularly, should it have been taken out on Iraqi soil over the 
objection of the Iraqi Government? That has now led the Iraqi 
Parliament to ask U.S. troops to withdraw from the region, which would 
empower Iran and empower ISIS.
  Finally, the Cruz amendment talks about President Trump. This 
resolution is not about President Trump. I had an original version of 
it that referenced activities of the administration, but my Republican 
colleagues----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KAINE. Asked me to remove those.
  I ask for a vote against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does anybody want to use time in favor of the 
amendment?
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President and fellow Senators, I rise in support of 
Senator Cruz's amendment.
  This is just a continuation of this animosity toward this President. 
This President did a great service to the United States of America, to 
the people of America, and to the world by dispatching General 
Soleimani as he did.
  All of us listened to the intelligence. We had the secret and top-
secret briefings on this. In addition to that, those of us on the 
Intelligence Committee actually got information that was compartmented. 
They had very clear information, proof to a very high degree that he 
was imminently attacking--he was imminently planning to attack 
Americans and American forces.
  This was the right thing to do. It rid the world of a person who 
really rose to the same level as Osama bin Laden and some of the other 
people who have done these awful things to Americans. We should 
congratulate this President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. RISCH. Just as we did with President Obama.
  Thank you. I urge an affirmative vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Are there any other

[[Page S1056]]

Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--34

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Markey
     Sanders
       
  The amendment (No. 1301) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1322

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Reed amendment No. 1322.
  The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Senator Reed.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to offer my amendment noting that as 
a result of Iran's recent ballistic missile strike against U.S. air 
bases in Iraq, over 100 servicemembers have sustained traumatic brain 
injuries, or TBIs, as a result of their proximity to the blasts.
  It is vitally important that all U.S. Government personnel--military 
and civilian--who incur such injuries be given the care they deserve 
and that their medical records be properly annotated to ensure they 
receive the care they are entitled to in the future.
  My amendment recognizes the seriousness of these injuries and honors 
those who will now have to deal with these wounds, possibly for the 
rest of their lives.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  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. RISCH. Mr. President, colleagues, I urge an affirmative vote on 
this. Just as we congratulated the President on the last amendment--the 
Commander in Chief, who made the very difficult decision to do what 
needed to be done to rein up the terrorists and the people who are 
operating out of Iran--we also need to recognize the people on the 
frontlines, our brave young men and women who are in Iraq, pushing back 
on Iran's attempt to influence and to infiltrate the country of Iraq. 
They are doing our work for us. We need to recognize that.
  I urge an affirmative vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays appear to be in order.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Markey
       
  The amendment (No. 1322) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1305

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to the vote in relation to Cotton amendment No. 1305.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
will be making a motion to table it following Senator Cotton's 
presentation.
  The Cotton amendment would establish a very dangerous precedent. I 
say that with all respect. It would basically allow military action 
against actors on the designated list of foreign terrorist 
organizations without there being a declaration of war against them.
  There are currently 69 FTOs on the list, including the Basque 
Fatherland and Liberty, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Irish 
Republican Army, and the Communist Party of the Philippines.
  The FTO list has never been a war authorization. The FTO list is 
created by the administration. It adds the names to it. This would 
suggest that, by being on the FTO, the U.S. military could take action 
against you even without there being congressional authorization. The 
list is so long, and it can be added to by a President. This would 
basically destroy the underlying bill by allowing a President to add to 
the FTO list rather than coming to Congress and then taking military 
action.
  I know the speaker's intention is that this goes to the IRGC. If we 
need to defend ourselves under article II, we can or we can declare 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this is not about the Basque, and this is 
not about the IRA. This resolution applies only to the Government of 
Iran. This is, indeed, only about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard 
Corps.
  Let me tell you a story about the last 17 years in Iraq.
  For 17 years, the most deadly weapon our troops have faced has been 
something called an explosively formed penetrator. It takes a slug of 
copper, superheats it into a ball of magma, and sends it hurtling 
through the air at 6,000 feet per second at our troops. I will spare 
you the graphic details of what a liquid ball of copper magma does when 
it travels at 6,000 feet per second into the human body, but I will 
tell you that those were smuggled into Iraq by, yes, the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  The vote here is simple: Do you want to vote to stand with our 
troops, hundreds of whom have died at the hands of Iran, or do you want 
to vote to be a lawyer for Iranian terrorists?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I move to table Cotton amendment No. 1305, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[[Page S1057]]

  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
  The motion is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1314

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to the Risch amendment, No. 1314.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I want to be very clear. I oppose this 
resolution, as it is misguided and it sends a terrible, confusing 
message to Iran and to our allies in the region.
  The purpose of my amendment is to make clear to Iran and to our 
allies that, under the Constitution, the President of the United States 
has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the 
United States, its Territories, possessions, citizens, servicemembers, 
and diplomats from attack.
  Who could disagree with that?
  Let's make this clear to Iran and to our allies that that is the 
state of play--notwithstanding the fact, of course, that this 
resolution will not become law. It is going to get vetoed, and the veto 
is going to be sustained.
  The clear language of this is very short:

       The President has a constitutional responsibility to take 
     actions to defend the United States, its territories, 
     possessions, citizens, servicemembers, and diplomats from 
     attack.

  Senators, make this clear. Vote yes on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, though my friend from Idaho opposes my 
resolution, I do not oppose his amendment. I view the Risch amendment 
as a basic restatement of constitutional law, and it is essentially the 
same concept as the rules of construction in the resolution, so I do 
not oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1314.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Gillibrand
     Leahy
     Markey
     Murphy
     Sanders
     Udall
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 1314) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1320

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). There will now be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, prior to the vote in relation to the Rubio 
amendment No. 1320.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this amendment is a statement of three 
facts: No. 1, that we are not engaged at this moment in hostilities 
with Iran--we are not at war with Iran; No. 2, that the actions that 
were taken against Soleimani were, frankly, lesser in scope, nature, 
and duration than what the previous administration did and the way they 
behaved in their exercise of war powers, also a statement of fact; and 
No. 3, that the maximum pressure of strategy against Iran has reduced 
Iran's resources that they can use to sponsor terrorism and proxy 
groups, also a statement of fact. Whether you agree with maximum 
pressure or not, it is a fact that this year, and last year, Iran has 
billions of dollars less than they otherwise would have, had it not 
been for the maximum pressure campaign.
  Those three things are statements of fact, and I think if we are 
going to have a resolution like this, it should accurately describe the 
situation, and that is why I urge your support and a negative vote 
against any effort to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote to table the 
Rubio amendment No. 1320. Let me explain why. The gist of the amendment 
is basically to say that we are not in hostilities with Iran. If you 
read the newspaper, we now see that 100 American troops are suffering 
from concussions--closed-head injuries--that could potentially lead to 
other significant consequences because of the Iranian attack on the Al-
Asad Air Base.
  The United States sent the military strike that killed Iran's key 
military leader and Iraqi militia leader. The United States took a 
previous strike a week before that killed 25 Iranian-connected militia 
members in 5 sites in Iraq and Syria. The War Powers Act has a 
definition of what armed conflict and hostilities are, and it is clear 
that Congress was meant to be able to file this exact motion either 
during armed conflict or even before armed conflict if it were 
imminent.
  I would argue that the 100 servicemembers who are suffering from head 
injuries and the American contractor who was killed is definitely proof 
that there are hostilities. I ask to table.
  I now move that Rubio amendment No. 1320 be tabled, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)

[[Page S1058]]


     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
  The motion is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.


                           Amendment No. 1319

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Sullivan amendment No. 1319.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, no one wants war with Iran, but while 
I respect Senator Kaine and my other colleagues who are supporting the 
broader AUMF, it has fatal flaws.
  First, it says the United States should cease its hostilities against 
Iran. This is completely backward. The United States is not actively 
conducting hostilities against Iran, but Iran has been actively 
conducting hostilities against us and our troops for decades. Just look 
at the long, bloody list: thousands of Americans dead and wounded, 
Marine barracks in Lebanon, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Soleimani, 
and deadly IEDs in Iraq.
  Second, the broader AUMF of Senator Kaine dramatically limits our 
ability to protect these very forces from future attacks, which we know 
the Iranians are planning. Close to half of the forces in Iraq right 
now are Alaska-based military forces, our friends and neighbors in 
Alaska. I want to make sure they are protected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. My amendment does that by making sure the President has 
clear authority to protect our troops.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who requests time in opposition?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I have great respect for my distinguished 
colleague from Alaska, and I appreciate his service to our country and 
his thoughts today.
  I stand in opposition to his amendment because, if there is one thing 
we don't need right now, it is anything else that would give more 
authority to the military-industrial complex to start and finish wars 
without authorization from Congress.
  Anytime we introduce additional ambiguity into a field that is 
already ripe with ambiguity, given the inherent tension between 
ambiguities surrounding the inherent article II Commander in Chief 
power and the article I power that Congress has to declare war, we run 
into problems. This would open up that ambiguity.
  The legislation we are addressing here, this resolution, is 
bipartisan. It has as its object to clarify that, for future, offensive 
action, we need congressional authorization. We have been lied to by 
the Pentagon for years regarding a war that has gone on for two 
decades. That is long enough. We don't want to create additional 
ambiguities. We don't want any more wars without the people's elected 
representatives being able to debate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I move to table the Sullivan amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young
  The motion is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think President Trump's decision to 
take out General Soleimani was the boldest defense policy decision of 
his Presidency to date. Even in a single strike, the President defended 
American lives and showed Iran that terrorism and, most importantly, 
spilling American blood is something that will come at a price, unlike 
what we have gone through with the predecessor, when the redline didn't 
mean anything. It means something now. Everybody knows it.
  The result is that we are now in the best negotiating position with 
Iran since 1979, and Iran's escalation, which includes attacks on 
tankers, Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, and the killing of an American 
citizen, has ended, at least for now.
  Yet some Democrats would have you believe in a vote for a War Powers 
Resolution, pretending as though the President is rushing to war. It is 
just not happening. The facts are not there. There is no war with Iran. 
An airstrike is not a war. Punishing Iran for killing an American 
citizen is not a war, nor has the Soleimani strike started a new war, 
as Democrats would have you believe. It just hasn't happened.
  It has been 3 weeks now since the Democrats first tried to vote on 
this resolution, and during those 3 weeks, nothing has happened. Let me 
just repeat that. Nothing has happened. There have been no new Iranian 
attacks against us, and we have not attacked them. How can anyone claim 
that we are at some kind of a war?
  Moreover, nobody wants war with Iran. The President has made it very 
clear that he doesn't want war with Iran. In fact, the President's 
decision to eliminate Soleimani has made war much less likely because 
it showed Iran that its terrorism would come at a price. That wasn't 
the case before.
  Despite this success, today we are debating whether we want to tie 
the hands of our Commander in Chief--or any Commander in Chief--to 
respond when American lives are put at risk, as the Constitution gives 
them the authority to do.
  I want to be sure that all of my colleagues are crystal clear on what 
exactly this War Powers Resolution means, what it will actually do. The 
resolution calls on the President to terminate the use of American 
Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran. But there are no hostilities 
against Iran. There is no war with Iran.
  The resolution calling for the termination of hostilities against 
California would have the same effect. Practically speaking, this vote 
will do nothing. It is nonsense, but we should be very concerned about 
the symbolic effect this vote will have.
  This will send a very damaging message to Iran. The Iranians will 
interpret a vote in favor of this resolution as tying the President's 
hands, and that would lead Iran to believe, once again, that it can get 
by with anything.
  Remember, it wasn't that long ago that they really believed that. 
Nobody wants that. Congress doesn't want it. The White House doesn't 
want it and certainly not the American people. So I don't know why we 
are even debating a resolution that could make war more likely, when we 
are trying to do just the opposite.
  If the Democrats insist on tying the President's hands, the least we 
can do is minimize the damage. While I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this resolution, I also urge them to support amendments to 
minimize the damage.
  I want to comment briefly on the amendment offered by the ranking 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my friend the Senator 
from Rhode Island. He is correct to highlight the traumatic brain 
injuries that a number of our troops suffered during the January 8 
Iranian strike on Iraq. We understand that.

[[Page S1059]]

  However, I would like to clarify: I believe we were not misled in 
this at all. Mild TBIs can only be confirmed through MRI scans. The 
Department of Defense implemented its screening procedure properly and 
made sure that all troops in the vicinity of the strike were screened. 
I think we need to understand that. All of this was done, and it is as 
if that wasn't done at all.
  Once those results were made available, the Department of Defense 
notified the public in a press release. It then briefed our committee, 
the committee that I chair. I therefore want to commend the Department 
of Defense for taking all the right measures to protect our forces 
during the Iranian strikes and for appropriately screening our forces 
for aftereffects.
  This is why I think it is extremely important that we vote this 
resolution down. Even as it is amended now, it will signal to the 
Iranians that there is no price for aggression. It will undermine 
deterrence, and it will leave our troops, diplomats, and citizens 
vulnerable. Nobody wants that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak with respect to final 
passage of S.J. Res. 68, which will be the next item of business before 
us. I will speak briefly because I have been on the floor about this a 
few times in the last week or two.
  First, I want to thank my colleagues for this process, including the 
President. It has been a very collaborative process, with a lot of 
dialogue, a lot of listening, a lot of changes in amendments, and back 
and forth since early January. My colleagues, however they voted on 
things that I hoped they might support me on, were very willing to 
dialogue and ask hard questions. I understood why people were where 
they were. I just want to thank the body for it.
  I also note what a cool thing it is to actually have a bunch of 
amendment votes on the floor. I hope we might do more on other items.
  This is an issue that is extremely important to this body, and it is 
extremely important to me. Of the variety of issues--I didn't serve in 
the military--why would it be important to me? Having a child in the 
military and coming from a State that is so connected to the military, 
I have been nearly obsessed with this issue since about 2002.
  I never knew I would have an opportunity to work on it as a U.S. 
Senator, but when I came here in 2012, I started to look for colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses who would stand for the 
proposition that war is the most solemn responsibility we have, and it 
cannot be outsourced to anyone.
  I was willing to stand up to a friend--a Democratic President--and 
challenge him when he was undertaking military action without coming to 
Congress. I have done the same with President Trump, but with no 
disrespect to the office. I want an article II President who will 
inhabit fully the article II powers of the office of Commander in 
Chief. But what I have hoped for since I came is an article I branch 
that would fully inhabit the article I powers that are vested only in 
Congress.
  For that reason, I put the resolution forward and worked with you and 
others to make sure the resolution was bipartisan. It is not only 
bipartisan, but folks from different parts of the political spectrum 
and from different parts of the country and new Members and veteran 
Members have come together to say--after many decades of abdicating 
responsibility, under Presidents of both parties and under majorities 
of both parties in both Houses--it is time for Congress to take this 
very seriously. That is why I will be voting in favor of the resolution 
and encouraging other colleagues to do the same.
  The last thing I want to say is this. I talked about these two young 
men briefly yesterday on the floor. I am struck by their stories. The 
last two men who were killed in combat for the United States in the 19-
yearlong war against terrorists that was sparked by America's righteous 
outrage over the attack of 9/11 were two sergeants first class, Javier 
Gutierrez and Antonio Rodriguez. They are both from the Southwest, one 
from San Antonio and one from Las Cruces, NM.
  They were both killed last week in Afghanistan by an insider attack. 
It was somebody who was wearing a uniform--potentially, a member of the 
Afghan National Security Forces or posing as one. These are the 
security forces that we have invested billions and billions of dollars 
in training and equipping--$45 billion this year alone. Someone wearing 
that uniform of an ally of the United States turned a weapon on these 
two gentlemen and killed them.
  I read their bios, and I was just so struck by their stories. They 
were 28 years old, which means they were 9 years old when 9/11 happened 
and when Congress passed the war authorization under whose terms they 
were then serving when they lost their lives in Afghanistan. They 
really never knew in their life anything but war.
  By the time they were 9 years old the Nation was at war. Nineteen 
years later, we are still in the same war, and that authorization has 
been used now all over the globe to engage in military activity 
virtually in so many countries and so many continents. They never knew 
anything but war.

  I just want to say a word about each of them.
  Sergeant Gutierrez was a young man, a 28-year-old from San Antonio. 
Sergeant Gutierrez's grandfather was an aviator in World War II who was 
shot down and imprisoned in a POW camp in Germany. His name was Mr. 
Ortiz. He was then liberated when the Russians liberated that POW camp. 
That was the grandfather. Sergeant Gutierrez's dad was a marine during 
the Vietnam era.
  Sergeant Gutierrez was born in Jacksonville, NC, near the Lejeune 
base in North Carolina. All he wanted to do was serve his country. He 
joined the Junior ROTC Program at his local high school because, he 
said, ``I want to be like my grandfather and I want to be like my 
dad.'' By all accounts, he served in such a wonderful way.
  This was his third deployment. He had one in Iraq and one in 
Afghanistan previously. This was his third deployment.
  He leaves behind a wife, Gabby, and four children ages 2 to 7.
  Sergeant Rodriguez was from Las Cruces, NM. He also leaves behind a 
wife, Ronaleen, no children, but a lot of devoted family.
  When I read this in the news, I thought it was a misprint. This was 
Sergeant Rodriguez's 11th deployment to Afghanistan. He was only 28 
years old. He probably didn't go into the military until he was 18, but 
he was Special Forces. Those deployments tend to be often, more 
frequent and maybe not as long in duration. But think about it--10 
times in Afghanistan, and on the 11th deployment, he gave his life. The 
sacrifices are just kind of staggering for me to contemplate.
  I will just conclude and say this: I know that everybody in this 
Chamber goes to VA hospitals to visit. I have three VA hospitals in 
Virginia. I was in one in Hampton last Friday. We do this because we 
want to see our great care providers. We talk to our veterans. We get 
inspired by stories of resilience and see cutting-edge treatments and 
technologies.
  Often, those visits are empowering and inspiring. One thing you will 
always feel when you leave after a visit to a VA hospital--and I felt 
this way when I left the VA in Hampton last Friday afternoon--is the 
enduring consequences of war. When I was visiting a mental health unit, 
when I was visiting the women's clinic that now deals with the 
increasing number of women veterans, what you grapple with are the 
enduring consequences of war.
  Under the best of circumstances, when we get it right and we win, 
there are still horrible consequences of war--people's health and 
people's lives and then the lives and health of the caregivers and 
friends of those who serve. Because those consequences are so momentous 
and so enduring, those of us in this body--and maybe especially those 
of us in this body who didn't wear the uniform and didn't serve--we 
have a special obligation to make sure that we deliberate and 
deliberate carefully before we send troops into harm's way.
  The President of the United States--this President and every 
President--always needs the ability to defend the United States against 
imminent attack without asking for anybody's permission. I think the 
world knows we will do that. This body, though, is a body

[[Page S1060]]

that needs to decide if we go on offense and engage in military action. 
Guess what. The world knows we will do that too.
  We took that vote on the war authorization in 2001, and 18 years 
later, we have tens of thousands of troops deployed and people still 
losing their lives. We are spending $45 billion a year in Afghanistan 
to preserve the gains that we won. No one can question America's 
resolve. But this resolution is about a level of deliberation to match 
the sacrifice that we expect. The sacrifice is momentous, so our 
deliberation should be careful. That is what this bill is designed to 
do. That is why I am so proud to have worked on it with my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, we are about to vote on an 
important piece of legislation. Of course, it is a piece of legislation 
that will never become law, but nonetheless it deserves our attention, 
and certainly it deserves serious consideration.
  We know two things as we approach this. No. 1, under the 
Constitution, it is absolutely crystal clear that only Congress can 
declare war. No. 2, which is crystal clear, we know the President of 
the United States has the authority to defend the country. Finally, No. 
3--and this is very important, as it relates to this--no one wants war 
with Iran. No one agrees that we should proceed to war with Iran. That 
is simply not the situation here today.
  There are constitutional questions here that we know we have to 
wrestle with, and they are difficult ones.
  It is important to note here, first of all, that the dispute that has 
been going on with Iran for a long, long time has really nothing to do 
with the Iranian people. We support the Iranian people. They have a 
long history, a proud tradition, and they deserve substantially better 
than what they are getting in leadership today.
  This is an important debate we are going to have today about war 
powers and the use of military force.
  One thing also that is clear but that muddies the water is that there 
is no clear line of delineation between actual war and the use of 
kinetic force.
  As I said, it is important to have this debate. I really believe it 
should not be held in this context. It should be a policy that we are 
debating that is useable in all contexts. I have sat through dozens of 
hours of debate on war powers, the war powers of the President. It is 
an age-old debate that has gone on since George Washington was 
President. It is a hard debate because all these words were written in 
the 18th century, and things were a lot clearer then. Things are much 
less clear today. These debates were long. There were many lawyers 
involved. Indeed, no conclusion can be reached.
  It is one of those areas where I have come to the conclusion that the 
words that need to be written in order to clearly specify the place 
that the President occupies and the place that the Congress occupies is 
a very, very difficult one.
  There are things on this Earth--and I really believe this may be one 
of them--where we know it when we see it, but we can't define it. We 
know war when we see it. We also know what kinetic action is, in order 
to protect the people of the United States, that is more isolated in 
the hands of the President doing the defensive measure. We know that 
when we see it. But defining the distinction between the two when one 
blurs into the other is very, very difficult.
  The President needs the authority that he has to defend the United 
States, and it is clear that authority comes from three buckets: No. 1, 
it comes from article II of the U.S. Constitution; No. 2, it comes from 
the War Powers Act; and No. 3, it comes from the AUMFs that have been 
passed by this body for some time.
  Iran, as you are listening, understand that the President has that 
authority. He has specific authority from all of those buckets. 
Notwithstanding the arguments that have been made here by some Members 
of this body, the President unquestionably has those powers. This power 
has been used very sparingly by this President. Compared to the last 
administration, the numbers are really, indeed, striking. The drone 
action, drone strikes that have been taken then and now--during the 
Obama administration, there were 540 of them over 8 years. In this 
particular administration, they are very, very few and far between and 
can only be described as a handful.
  This is a President who abhors the use of military force. I have had 
the opportunity to discuss it with him at length. I have actually been 
in the room when he has been confronted with these questions and had to 
make the decisions. He is deeply moved by these kinds of questions and 
understands how difficult they are. When he talks about how he has to 
write letters to the families of the men and women who didn't come 
home, about having to make those phone calls, about having to go to 
Dover to receive the remains of our brave men and women who didn't make 
it home alive, he is deeply, deeply disturbed by these matters. I can 
tell you, as I said, having been there, when he has had to make these 
decisions, they weigh heavily on him.
  So what are we doing here today? It certainly isn't to rein in this 
President. He has not used his power willy-nilly, as I have indicated. 
It has been used very, very sparingly, and it has been used in great 
contrast to the previous administration.
  Well, what we are doing here today is we are trying to get our arms 
around the question of, when is it appropriate for the President to use 
military force? We all have our ideas on that. We have the words that 
the Founding Fathers left us, so we are going to debate it here today. 
And it is important.
  The unfortunate part about this is that we are also sending a message 
to Iran. Iran is listening. There is no question that they are 
listening to this debate. They are listening to what people are saying 
here on the floor of the Senate.
  One of the messages that will come out of this and the way this is 
drawn is that the drafters of this want to send a message of 
appeasement to Iran. This has been tried. It hasn't worked. The last 
administration bent over backward to offer appeasement to Iran. They 
were greatly betrayed by it. It was tried with the JCPOA, and it didn't 
work. The reason it didn't work is that we are not dealing with people 
here who are acting in good faith.

  What we need to do is to send a message of firmness and not weakness. 
At the end of the day, when we are all done with this, there will be 
such a message. It needs to be a consistent and a uniform message when 
it comes to messaging to Iran and when it comes to the messaging of our 
foreign policy as it relates to Iran. It will not be this law that is 
before us, because it is going to be vetoed. We all know it is going to 
be vetoed. It takes a two-thirds majority to override that. It is not 
going to happen.
  So the mixed message is there. Iran will listen to it. The hard-
liners will take it one way, and other people will take it the other. 
That is not a good situation. Hopefully, we will be able to lay this 
out in a way in which they can read between the lines and get the 
message that is important.
  The President took an action that people have criticized here that 
was difficult. It was a tough decision. He was a really bad guy--a guy 
who was worse than Osama bin Laden. He was the person who was executing 
Iran's malign policies in the world and in the region. His killings and 
loss of limbs have become legendary in the world today. Whenever I see 
one of our young men or women who is missing an arm or a leg, he or she 
owes that to General Soleimani. He killed hundreds of people. He was 
responsible for the IED program that took the lives of so many and 
maimed so many of our men and women who were fighting in the Middle 
East. It got to the point at which he was wandering around, really, 
with impunity and was not worried about what he was doing or that 
anybody was going to take any action against him.
  Let's look at the timeline over the last year.
  The Iranians started by blowing up oil tankers, and nothing was done 
about it. They attacked the Saudi oil fields, where 100 Americans were 
working, and nothing was done about it. They took down a drone of ours 
over international space, and nothing was done about it. Finally, over 
the fall, they ratcheted it up with 13 attacks on U.S. soldiers at U.S. 
bases in Iraq. These were our men and our women

[[Page S1061]]

whom we had asked to go over there and push back against Iran's attempt 
at infiltration into Iraq. They took 13 attacks. Finally, on one of 
those attacks, somebody was killed. The President laid down a redline 
that, if an American were killed, there was going to be a price to pay. 
They finally killed that person. They attacked our Embassy in Baghdad 
and attempted to set it on fire.
  Eventually, the President made the choice to do what he did. This was 
in response to Iran's continual pushing of the envelope and the 
miscalculations that Iran made. General Soleimani had been traveling 
from place to place, putting in place the final plans of coordination 
for the execution of an attack against the American people. It was 
imminent.
  You have heard my friends here say: Oh, no. It was not imminent. We 
listened to the intelligence.
  I sit on the Intelligence Committee. I sat through all of the 
briefings that were given that were at the secret level and at the top 
secret level that were given to the people who are here in the body. I 
also sat through the ones that were given to the Intelligence 
Committee, which were compartmented and much more granular. There was 
no doubt that this man was planning an imminent attack to kill 
Americans. He didn't get the chance.
  Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for what you did.
  We have heard the argument here that it was not imminent. This person 
was substantially more of an imminent danger to the United States of 
America and to Americans than Osama bin Laden was. Yet, when the 
President of the United States, Barack Obama, took out Osama bin Laden, 
we all cheered it. In fact, we passed a resolution here--100 to 0--
commending the President of the United States for what he did.
  Mr. President, you heard us today pass such a resolution that thanks 
you. Thank you, Mr. President, and farewell, General Soleimani.
  Iran, do not miscalculate and read what is happening here as being 
capitulation or weakness or appeasement. It is not. It is a 
disagreement between this branch of government, the legislative branch, 
and our second branch of government, the executive branch, as to how we 
should defend ourselves. Make no mistake about it: We will defend 
ourselves.
  In America, we operate under the rule of law. This joint resolution 
that is in front of us that we are debating today will not become law. 
It will not be part of the body of law by which we live. It will be 
vetoed.
  Iran, take note: If you continue on the path that you are on with 
your malign activities, it is going to take you to a very bad place.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. I understand how it is going to come out. I 
will be standing here again to sustain the President's veto, and it 
will be sustained.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled 
1:45 p.m. vote commence now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution, as amended, 
pass?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--45

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 68), as amended, was passed, as 
follows:

                              S.J. Res. 68

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under 
     article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States 
     Constitution.
       (2) The President has a constitutional responsibility to 
     take actions to defend the United States, its territories, 
     possessions, citizens, service members, and diplomats from 
     attack.
       (3) Congress has not yet declared war upon, nor enacted a 
     specific statutory authorization for use of military force 
     against, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The 2001 Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 
     note) against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack and the 
     Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 
     do not serve as a specific statutory authorization for the 
     use of force against Iran.
       (4) The conflict between the United States and the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran constitutes, within the meaning of section 
     4(a) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either 
     hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in 
     hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into 
     which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.
       (5) Members of the United States Armed Forces and 
     intelligence community, and all those involved in the 
     planning of the January 2, 2020, strike on Qasem Soleimani, 
     including President Donald J. Trump, should be commended for 
     their efforts in a successful mission.
       (6) Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1544(c)) states that ``at any time that United States Armed 
     Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of 
     the United States, its possessions and territories without a 
     declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such 
     forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so 
     directs''.
       (7) More than 100 members of the United States Armed Forces 
     sustained traumatic brain injuries in the Iranian retaliatory 
     attack on the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq despite initial 
     reports that no casualties were sustained in the attack.
       (8) Section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1547(c)) defines the introduction of the United States Armed 
     Forces to include ``the assignment of members of such armed 
     forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement 
     of, or accompany the regular or irregular forces of any 
     foreign country or government when such military forces are 
     engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces 
     will become engaged in, hostilities''.
       (9) The United States Armed Forces have been introduced 
     into hostilities, as defined by the War Powers Resolution, 
     against Iran.
       (10) The question of whether United States forces should be 
     engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered 
     following a full briefing to Congress and the American public 
     of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a 
     congressional vote as contemplated by the Constitution.
       (11) Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization 
     Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) provides 
     that any joint resolution or bill to require the removal of 
     United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities without a 
     declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall 
     be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Export 
     Control Act of 1976.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES FORCES FOR 
                   HOSTILITIES AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 
                   IRAN.

       (a) Termination.--Pursuant to section 1013 of the 
     Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 
     1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), and in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance 
     and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Congress hereby directs 
     the President to terminate the use of United States Armed 
     Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of 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.

[[Page S1062]]

       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prevent the United States from defending itself 
     from imminent attack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


               Making Technical Corrections--S.J. Res. 68

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerks 
be allowed to make technical corrections to the engrossing of the 
amendments to S.J. Res. 68.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________