[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1615-H1622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call up 
the 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jayapal). Pursuant to House Resolution 
891, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

[[Page H1616]]

  


                              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.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prevent the United States from defending itself 
     from imminent attack.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material in the Record related to S.J. Res. 68, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, a resolution 
that will allow Congress to stand up for its constitutional 
responsibilities over war powers, a resolution that will send a clear 
message that the American people don't want war with Iran and that 
Congress has not authorized war with Iran.
  In the few months since the House last took up legislation to address 
the administration's policy toward Iran, much has shifted.
  I think we are all relieved that tensions have ratcheted down. After 
the strike that took out Qasem Soleimani, we appeared to be on the 
brink of a direct conflict with Iran, but things have cooled off since. 
Some will say this resolution is no longer needed or has no legal 
effect because we are not shooting at Iran today. They say we are not 
in hostilities with Iran.
  But that is not an accurate reading of the law. The drafters of the 
War Powers Resolution accounted for the situation we are in today. They 
were clear that Congress' powers are not as narrow as the 
administration would like us to believe and, apparently, as some 
Members of this body would like us to believe.
  The committee report from 1973 says, ``In addition to a situation in 
which fighting actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state 
of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a 
clear and present danger of armed conflict.'' That sounds a lot like 
what we are facing today, except shots have been fired on both sides.
  Further, the President had to send 6,000 additional troops to the 
Middle East after the Soleimani incident, precisely because there is a 
clear and present danger of armed conflict.
  Congress doesn't have to wait until the President alone decides to 
use military force again. Indeed, it is our responsibility to do 
something because we know that tensions could flare up again at a 
moment's notice.

                              {time}  1415

  Iran has not been deterred, as the administration promised. Indeed, 
there have already been four attacks on American personnel after the 
President ordered Soleimani's killing, injuring more than 100 U.S. 
servicemembers.
  This isn't deterrence. The regime is again pushing ahead with 
research into a nuclear weapon and expanding its stockpile of enriched 
uranium.
  Now, I don't like the Iranian Government. I don't like what they 
stand for. I don't like what they do. But the reality is this: 
Following the strike, we are now closer to a war with a country that is 
closer to possessing a nuclear weapon.
  The last few weeks have also shown the administration scrambling to 
come up with a legal justification for the strike. Contrary to the 
initial claims, it quickly became clear that there was no imminent 
threat.
  In fact, when the administration sent a legally required report to 
Congress, laying out the legal and policy justifications, there was no 
mention of an imminent threat--none whatsoever.
  What was in that report, however, was an alarming claim that 
underscores why it is so important to press ahead with this resolution. 
According to the administration, the strike on Soleimani was legally 
authorized by the 2002 Saddam Hussein war authorization. Let me say 
that again: the 2002 Saddam Hussein, Iraq war authorization.
  Madam Speaker, I was here in 2002 when the House considered that 
resolution, and I can tell you: Congress did not intend for it to 
authorize a war against Iran. Read it. Nowhere will you find any 
mention of Iran.
  Incidentally, the House has voted to repeal this out-of-date war 
authorization, thanks to Congresswoman Lee's efforts, which I have 
supported.
  I have heard some arguments that the 2002 authorization wasn't just 
about Saddam, but was also about terrorism, because that legislation 
says Saddam Hussein might give al-Qaida weapons of mass destruction. 
That finding was debunked a long time ago, and it still has nothing to 
do with Iran.

[[Page H1617]]

  Some also claim that because the forces in Iraq under the 2001 and 
2002 war authorizations have acted in self-defense against Iraqi 
militias backed by Iran, that somehow means that the 2002 AUMF can be 
used to attack Iran directly.
  Anyone who is confused about this needs to read the administration's 
legal rationale more closely. They have been all over the map, trying 
to untangle this confusion, but their official justification is clear. 
It distinguishes the Soleimani killing from the defensive actions taken 
against militias--apples and oranges.
  The administration, and any administration, should not be relying on 
the 2002 AUMF for anything, but we should all be able to recognize that 
attacking Iran is very different from other uses of force in Iraq.
  It is an absurd reading of the authorization, and if the 
administration is going to lean on that outdated law for this, what 
else do they plan to use it for?
  Some executive branch officials, past and present, also argue that 
the Constitution gives the President sweeping unilateral power to use 
military force without coming to Congress. I will say that again: 
without coming to Congress. But even among this group, it is hard to 
find anyone who actually believes Congress authorized the strike 
against Soleimani.
  What has me worried is that the President made a decision to escalate 
tensions with Iran; failed to consult Congress, even though he had 
ample opportunity to do so; misled the American people about why the 
strike was necessary; and then switched gears and conjured up this 
dubious, after-the-fact legal justification.
  Here is the reality: The American people don't want war with Iran. 
The Congress has not authorized war with Iran. That should be crystal 
clear.
  Congress has the right to declare war. It is in the Constitution. It 
doesn't say that the President has the right, any President. It doesn't 
say the President has the right; Congress has the right.
  We are trying to fulfill the Constitution. We are trying to take the 
Constitution back to the way it was and the way it was interpreted. 
Congress has the power to declare war.
  Many of us are very concerned that since December 7, 1941, when 
President Franklin Roosevelt stood up and declared war against Japan, 
we have not had a declared war since then. So, what has that done? It 
has really rendered Congress impotent. Congress, essentially, has no 
say, and the President is the one who decides unilaterally.
  That cannot be. That should not be. It is going directly against the 
Constitution, and we should not stand for it any longer.
  So, as I said, the American people don't want war. Congress has not 
authorized war. That should be crystal clear.
  However, since the administration is somehow claiming that Congress 
has already authorized force against Iran, then it becomes that much 
more important for Congress to go on record saying otherwise, and that 
is what this joint resolution would do.
  We passed a similar measure in January. At the time, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle argued that the House version was 
unenforceable because it was a concurrent resolution, that it would 
never go to the President's desk and wouldn't have the power of law.
  I disagreed with that assessment. In my view, the House version was a 
clear exercise of Congress' authority over war powers. We don't have 
authority over war powers only if the President says so. We have 
authority over war powers because the Constitution says so.
  The House and Senate have both acted, and the Supreme Court has made 
clear that the President's Article II war powers are at their lowest 
ebb when he acts against the express will of Congress. We have 
expressed our will. The President does not have authority for war with 
Iran.
  But the legislation we are considering today takes a step further. It 
is a joint resolution, not a concurrent resolution, so it will go 
straight to the President's desk if it passes the House unamended.

  It is important that Congress stands up for itself, but more 
important is that Congress stands up for its constitutional authorities 
and makes it clear that we don't want war and that we haven't 
authorized war with Iran.
  Advancing this measure would be the right thing to do under any 
circumstances, but it is especially important in the face of an 
administration that, again and again, tries to brush Congress aside as 
though we are an annoyance rather than a constitutionally coequal 
branch of government.
  Now, I will be honest and say that this has been done by subsequent 
administrations on both sides of the aisle. Well, we don't want it done 
by any administration. Congress has the power to declare war--not a 
President, Congress.
  We are not an annoyance; we are a constitutionally coequal branch of 
government. I am glad to support this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just have to say, here we go again. This is the third time in 2 
months that the Democrat leadership has put this divisive and 
irresponsible debate on the House floor.
  I have to ask, Madam Speaker, what are we doing here today on this 
War Powers Resolution again?
  Our constituents are concerned about the impact of coronavirus on 
American lives and the United States economy, not partisan posturing. 
In fact, the WHO just declared that the coronavirus is now a pandemic.
  Madam Speaker, that is what we should be focused on here today.
  This political War Powers Resolution is based on a false premise. It 
orders the President to terminate hostilities against Iran. The problem 
is, for the other side, we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran.
  I asked Secretary Pompeo that very question on February 28, 8 weeks 
after the Soleimani strike, before our Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
Are we engaged in hostilities against Iran? His response was: ``We are 
not.''
  Our military commander in the Middle East agrees. General McKenzie 
was asked yesterday at the Armed Services Committee if we are engaged 
in hostilities against Iran or Iranian forces. He said, as Secretary 
Pompeo said: ``No, we are not.''
  I am a strong supporter of our Article I powers, as I know the 
chairman is as well. If we were to launch strikes in Iran, I believe 
that the President would need to come before this body to ask for a new 
authorization.
  But that, Madam Speaker, is not what we are facing. This text 
completely ignores the remarkable restraint that the President has 
shown over the past few months. He has used force only when necessary 
to protect American lives.
  I was with the President at the White House when he was deciding how 
to respond to Iran's shooting down of our drone. He would have been 
justified, I believe, in taking out launch sites, but he decided to 
deescalate instead. He was very clear, saying: ``I do not want to go to 
war with Iran.''
  The January 2 strike on Qasem Soleimani inside Iraq, not Iran, was 
not an escalation by the United States. It was an appropriate response 
to his deadly targeting of Americans and diplomats in Iraq.
  Soleimani has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands. Most 
recently, he organized an escalating series of attacks in Iraq, an 
escalating series of these attacks which killed an American, wounded 
multiple U.S. servicemen, and involved the siege of our Embassy, an 
attack on our Embassy in Baghdad.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, said the 
administration would have been ``culpably negligent'' had they not 
acted to take him out.
  The strike on Soleimani in Iraq was totally justified as self-defense 
under the President's Article II constitutional powers.
  Jeh Johnson, President Obama's general counsel at the Department of 
Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, a person I have great, 
tremendous respect for and who I worked very closely with when I was 
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in his words, he stated 
that Soleimani ``was a lawful military objective, and

[[Page H1618]]

the President, under his constitutional authority as Commander in 
Chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an 
additional congressional authorization.''
  This is the man in the Obama administration who approved the 
airstrikes against the terrorists.
  More importantly, the Soleimani strike was a success. Let me quote 
from a recent Washington Post article, where they said: The 
Revolutionary Guard ``now finds itself on the back foot, a notable 
change after successfully projecting its power in the Middle East over 
recent years.''
  The Quds Force--Quds, meaning Jerusalem--that is their ultimate 
objective, to annihilate the State of Israel. ``The Quds Force has been 
significantly deterred from retaliating further against the United 
States.''
  But the Democrats cannot admit anything good can come from this 
President, and that has consequences. In my judgment, we are wasting 
precious legislative days and setting a terrible precedent of abusing 
War Powers procedures.
  This will be the fifth time that this Congress, and in this Congress, 
that we are considering a War Powers Resolution directing the President 
to withdraw U.S. forces from wars we are not actually fighting--three 
on Iran and two on Yemen.
  Iran and its proxies are watching right now, as we spin our wheels. 
What they see, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, is not a united America, 
but a divided America that does not fully support the ability of our 
Commander in Chief to adequately respond to threats against Americans.
  Now is not the time to tie our Commander in Chief's hands. Now is the 
time to support our troops and to support our diplomats.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank my friend, the ranking 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for their good work.
  I understand we have a difference of opinion, and I do deeply respect 
my friend from Texas and his substantive and thoughtful contributions 
to our foreign policy debate in our committee, but I must disagree with 
the argument that we ought to be focused on only one thing right now.
  As grave as the coronavirus crisis is--and I would be happy to talk 
about that and the missteps of this administration in making it worse--
Congress is the people's body. We are here defending the legislative 
branch of government and its constitutional role on matters of war and 
peace. What could be more serious?
  The fact that we are here the third time doesn't make it any less 
grave or serious. It underlines the importance of the issue and the 
fact that many of us in this body are going to continue to be here on 
the floor until Congress reasserts the role the chairman outlined for 
us that is the constitutional role.
  We have allowed way too much power to gravitate to the executive 
branch. We have abrogated our responsibilities here in Congress for 
decades. We like having it both ways. We tsk-tsk when the executive 
branch, we think, crosses the line, but we don't want to take 
responsibility for it.
  This resolution asks Congress to do just that: stand up and take 
responsibility, while holding the executive branch accountable.
  President Trump ordered a provocative and disproportionate drone 
strike that killed the Iranian Quds Forces commander, Major General 
Qasem Soleimani, a bad actor, but that begs the question: Should we 
have done it?
  And, oh, by the way, what level of consultation and intelligence 
ought to be shared with the legislative branch that has constitutional 
responsibility for matters of war and peace?
  We know the administration had to do some fast footwork to 
rationalize why now, why him, why there, and, oh, by the way, what are 
the consequences of doing that? In all of those questions, even with a 
formal briefing of Congress, the administration simply did not have 
good answers. In fact, they had contradictory answers.
  Taking Soleimani out, my friend from Texas says, was a good thing. 
Well, it is not without consequences. We evacuated nonessential 
personnel from Iraq as a consequence of that move because of the terror 
threat. One hundred U.S. military personnel suffered brain damage or 
head damage because of the retaliatory strikes on the U.S. base in 
Iraq. These things have consequences.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, reining in the administration is the 
right thing to do until and unless we get answers and debate and 
intelligence provided to the legislative branch for justification as we 
move forward.
  The idea that we are not at war with Iran so it is actually a 
redundant or unnecessary conversation, I think, is not an argument. In 
fact, now is precisely the time to constrain the executive branch, to 
set boundaries, to make sure they understand that Congress reasserting 
itself will set boundaries and legitimate barriers for proceeding down 
that road without first coming to the legislative branch as, indeed, 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in 1941, walking right down, with great 
difficulty, that aisle, asking Congress to declare war; and, indeed, 
Congress listened and responded. That is how it ought to work.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who 
served in the United States Army and fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, thank you to lead Republican McCaul for 
important words to start today's debate.
  For the third time in 2 months, as he pointed out, we are here to 
debate an Iran War Powers Resolution. Once again, this resolution 
requires terminating the use of force against Iran, even though U.S. 
Forces are not engaged in hostilities against Iran.
  As we stand here today, the President has repeatedly said in the past 
that he does not want a war with Iran. I don't. This body doesn't. My 
constituents don't.
  The President, himself, as lead Republican McCaul has pointed out, 
has shown incredible restraint when opportunities have presented, when 
there was legal justification to strike back.
  We must continue to pursue peace through strength. The military 
option is the last possible option that we should ever use, but we need 
Iran to understand that it is on the table.
  My colleague from the other side of the aisle who just spoke used the 
term ``disproportionate'' to describe taking out Qasem Soleimani. As 
people listen to today's debate, and if you are one of the 600-plus 
families who lost your son or daughter, your husband or your wife, 
maybe your mother or father because of Qasem Soleimani, if you are one 
of the thousands of people who were injured because of Qasem Soleimani, 
U.S. troops--600 U.S. troops, thousands of U.S. troops were injured 
because of Qasem Soleimani, and, literally, in the days leading up to 
this attack, we had U.S. citizens who were killed and wounded because 
of Qasem Soleimani.
  What is the justification? What was Qasem Soleimani doing in Iraq? 
How about we look at IRGC's own statement of January 3? The IRGC said 
that Soleimani was in Iraq to ``plan a confrontation against the new 
scheme of the Americans to rebuild DAESH and the Takfiri groups 
in order to again disrupt Iraq's security.''

  Anyone who wants to suggest that Soleimani was in Iraq to do anything 
that was good and not to be planning and engaged in hostilities has to 
ignore the IRGC's own words.
  The IRGC is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Qasem 
Soleimani is a designated terrorist himself, as sanctioned by the 
United States and the EU and the U.N., and we took him out. And I say 
good.
  To hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle call it 
disproportionate, my question is: How many more U.S. troops have to die 
at the hands of Qasem Soleimani before it is

[[Page H1619]]

proportionate? How many more have to lose arms and legs at the hands of 
Qasem Soleimani until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
call it proportionate?
  I salute the President for making a decision; it was well done.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, it is gratifying to see that Congress is 
becoming serious about restoring our authority over matters of war and 
peace. Our oversight responsibilities don't end when the news cycle 
changes. I hope that the outcome of this vote today will be another 
bipartisan rejection of war with Iran.
  But let's be honest. We know that the eventual outcome will be a 
Presidential veto. We have been through this already with the Yemen War 
Powers Resolution when we passed it last year.
  But despite the inevitable veto, it is critically important that we 
are here today voting to insist on our constitutional power. Our 
Founders understood that these decisions are too important to rest in 
the hands of one person.
  The decision to assassinate General Soleimani was a reckless and 
badly considered decision that made Americans less safe, and it opened 
the door to a series of escalating retaliations that makes the world 
less safe.
  But my vote today is not just about this particular strike or 
preventing a particular war. My colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were eager to claim these authorities when there was a Democratic 
President in the Oval Office. Had I been in office then, I would have 
joined them in demanding congressional authorization for wars in Libya 
and Syria. It should not depend on what political power is in the White 
House.
  We should be consistent in our principles. In my view, this means 
maintaining the momentum of this vote and our previous vote to repeal 
the 2002 AUMF. It means finally taking up Barbara Lee's bill to repeal 
the 2001 AUMF as well.
  Madam Speaker, I support this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Waltz), a veteran of the war in Afghanistan and the first 
Green Beret elected to Congress.
  Mr. WALTZ. Madam Speaker, I find this interesting and sad. Since the 
last time we were here, for all the handwringing, all of the hues and 
cries that the President was taking us to the brink of war, that he was 
a warmonger, that this was so reckless as we are still hearing today, 
well, what has actually happened?
  The problem with my colleague's argument is that it flies in the face 
of what is actually happened in the Middle East.
  What has happened is deterrence has been restored. It is relatively 
peaceful at this point.
  I say, ``relatively.'' The fact is that we don't have thousands of 
boots on the ground in Teheran or in Iran.
  What we all know who have actually fought against the Quds Force and 
fought against the Iranians is they are deterred by strength and 
emboldened by weakness.
  So this bill seeks to restrain the President, who has shown 
incredible restraint.
  Did he respond to the attacks on international shipping? No.
  Did he respond to attacks on world energy supplies? No.
  Did he respond to the attack on an American drone? No.
  Only after another American was killed--yet another American was 
killed--and our Embassy was attacked did he finally respond. And what 
did he do? A limited, proportional, targeted strike in Iraq--not Iran--
that had zero civilian casualties.
  And every American, from the lowest private to the Commander in 
Chief, has the right to self-defense. It was his duty. It was the 
President's duty as Commander in Chief to stop the Iranian escalation 
and to respond.
  And, by the way, what did he do? He took down the head of a terrorist 
organization who was declared, under the Obama administration, a 
terrorist, no different than Osama bin Laden, no different than al-
Baghdadi. A terrorist is a terrorist.
  In this case, Soleimani was a massive and serial human rights abuser, 
responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people across the 
Middle East, and the world is a better place for the fact that he is no 
longer on this Earth.
  Madam Speaker, all this is doing is seeking to tie the President's 
hands; and the last thing I want is any Commander in Chief--and to my 
colleague--for any party having to come back to this body to defend 
Americans, to defend our diplomats, and to exercise his right to take 
terrorists off the face of this Earth.
  I cannot encourage my colleagues more strongly to oppose this 
resolution. This is politics at its worst.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairman for 
yielding and also for his consistent leadership on issues of war and 
peace and making sure that Congress does its job.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 68, which is a 
resolution terminating the use of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities 
against Iran. This critical resolution helps put a check on the 
administration's reckless and irrational military action against Iran.

  The American people do not want, nor can we allow, another 
unnecessary war of choice in the Middle East. This resolution is an 
important step in our efforts to prevent that from happening.
  Make no mistake: The assassination of Mr. Soleimani just a few months 
ago placed us on the brink of war. This did constitute an act of 
hostility against Iran, and, in fact, injured at least 100 of our brave 
troops. Also, it hurt our national security and made us less safe.
  President Trump's continued and reckless military action without 
congressional approval or authorization caused this crisis. But we are 
here today to make clear that the President cannot launch a war with 
Iran without the explicit authorization of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, we have been down this dangerous path before in Iraq, 
and we cannot afford another ill-advised, destructive, and costly war 
in the Middle East.
  And, yes, I opposed the use of force without congressional 
authorization during the previous administration. This is not a 
partisan issue. Congress must do its job, and we must even go further 
to restore our constitutional duty over military action.
  I hope the Senate takes up my bill, H.R. 2456, to repeal the 2002 
Iraq AUMF, which the House passed in January, which the administration, 
mind you, used as the basis for the assassination of Soleimani and its 
military hostilities toward Iran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me remind you that the 2002 
Iraq resolution was introduced to address weapons of mass destruction 
purportedly in Iraq. Now, this was a lie, it was put forth by the Bush 
administration. And many of us who were here tried to halt the use of 
force and to allow the inspectors to complete their inspections. 
Unfortunately--and I had an amendment to do this--it received just 72 
votes.
  Now, regardless of how one voted, the 2002 authorization was specific 
to Iraq, not Iran, nor any other country. And so it is past time that 
Congress reassert our congressional authority on matters of war and 
peace. We must also return to diplomacy and peace and stop these 
endless wars.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this. It is time that we 
do our job. Congress has been missing in action.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman), who served in the United 
States Air Force for over a decade and is a veteran of Operation Allied 
Force and Enduring Freedom.
  Mr. RIGGLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 
Res. 68, which is a divisive resolution that ties President Trump's 
hands during a time when our Nation and regional allies like Israel 
need our support.

[[Page H1620]]

  This resolution ignores efforts the President has made to avoid war, 
instead continuing the Democratic Party's fixation on the President's 
strike on Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.
  My background does give me an expert perspective on the challenges in 
the Middle East, and an understanding of the current situation on the 
ground. Not only did I deploy directly after 9/11, I was the counter-
IED team chief in 2006 and 2007 for the Counter-IED Operations 
Intelligence Integration Center. So our team saw firsthand what Iranian 
Quds Forces could do to U.S. forces based on IED deployment and 
technology transfer.
  This was not some type of reckless assassination. This was a targeted 
elimination of a terrorist on our target list. President Trump's 
escalated air strikes against those planning to inflict harm on 
Americans are warranted responses against Iranian actions.
  The United States reserves the right to defend itself, especially 
against bad actors like Soleimani and Iran. Instead of supporting a 
President who struck a terrorist, Democrats have retreated to partisan 
talking points and have flocked to this bill, which undermines the 
President's actions and shows a lack of American resolve to our enemies 
abroad. This legislation harms our ability to protect American 
interests. It harms our military preparedness.
  Lines 20-25 of the resolution state that the President must terminate 
the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran ``or 
any part of its government or military?''
  Does this include proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Algeria, 
Yemen, Bahrain, and Shia militia groups? The IRGC is a foreign 
terrorist organization, including its Quds Force.
  Soleimani was with a person called al-Muhandis, the center of command 
and control against American forces, Shia militia groups, and an 
Iranian proxy. Do we consider force protection conditions? The 
Commander in Chief needs flexibility in this new Arab warfare.
  And I do agree that it is time for Congress to update our 
authorizations for use of military force. I am eager to participate in 
this process during this time of asymmetric warfare and rapid response 
to terrorism. Let's provide solutions. Let's not provide political 
hyperbole.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this War 
Powers Resolution to ensure that the President cannot start a war with 
Iran without Congress' approval.
  I understand this is the fourth time that the House will vote to say 
``no'' to war with Iran since President Trump ordered an unauthorized, 
illegal strike on Iranian General Soleimani. We passed our own war 
powers measure, led by Representative Slotkin.
  We passed a bill with bipartisan support to cut off funding for 
unauthorized, offensive military operations against Iran. And we voted 
to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization that the Trump administration 
has inappropriately used to justify the strike on Soleimani and 
potential future strikes against Iranian targets.
  Madam Speaker, we have to be clear that this is not about whether 
General Soleimani was a good guy or a bad guy. Nobody is really 
disputing that.
  The question here is: What is Congress' authority to have a say on 
whether or not the United States is going to war? If we are going to 
send troops into war, then we have an obligation to vote on that, to 
debate that, and to make sure that we preserve the congressional 
authority.
  And I think, Madam Speaker, that this is something that both 
Democrats and Republicans have consistently succumbed to. So we have 
consistently, Democrats and Republicans, given authority to the Chief 
Executive that is not theirs to start with. Congress has spoken again 
and again on this. We should have learned by now.
  The American people have spoken. They don't want us in endless wars 
without authorization from Congress, without a debate here in Congress, 
without utilizing those Constitutional powers that our Founding Framers 
gave us. It is time for us to do this, and to ensure that the President 
listens.
  So today, I am urging all of my colleagues to set aside partisanship, 
to think about this as something that we are reclaiming for ourselves 
as Congress, to support this resolution that has already passed the 
Republican-held Senate with bipartisan support.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to, again, state the main reason for us voting 
on this. I am no fan of the regime in Iran. And I certainly was no fan 
of Soleimani, who had blood on his hands and did all kinds of heinous 
things. I don't care so much about them.

  What I care about is us. What I care about is the Constitution of the 
United States of America. It was drafted a certain way. It wasn't 
drafted to say that the President, no matter who that President is, no 
matter what party that President is from, the President has authority 
to do whatever he likes.
  It clearly says--and I said this before, but I think it is worth 
repeating. It clearly says that Congress has the power to declare war. 
Congress. And what we are trying to do on this side of the aisle is 
trying to strike that balance, the checks and balances. We all learned 
them when we went to school, checks and balances.
  The Constitution doesn't say the President can do anything he wants 
and the Congress must follow suit. It says that Congress has the sole 
right to declare war.
  It is really disturbing to me that subsequent Presidents--and this 
isn't only the fault of one President or one political party. This is a 
road that we all share blame for this--we have allowed our branch of 
government to wither on the vine when it comes to declaring war, when 
it comes to war powers.
  We have essentially said that any President can just declare war, and 
Congress has got to go along with it. If you don't go along with it, 
somehow you are unpatriotic or you don't care about the country. Quite 
the opposite. Quite the opposite.
  We care about the country and we are patriotic, and that is why we 
believe that the Constitution needs to be adhered to.
  Now, I would also encourage my colleagues to look more closely at the 
facts, instead of just accepting what the executive branch is saying 
about reinterpreting the law.
  As I said in my opening statement, the drafters of the War Powers 
Resolution were clear, that the situation we are in today is in a state 
of hostility. We are constantly today in a state of hostility.
  The committee report passing the War Powers Resolution from 1973, in 
the Congress, says: ``In addition to a situation in which fighting 
actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state of 
confrontation in which no shots have been fired, but where there is a 
clear and present danger of armed conflict.''
  Certainly, we are in that situation now. That is exactly the 
situation we are in right now.
  So Congress' powers are not as narrow as the administration would 
like us to believe. I don't care who is President, and I don't care 
about who is elected in Congress. What I care about is that Congress 
fulfill its duties; fulfill its duties as the Constitution says that we 
must.
  So we are doing this again because the other body has not been 
cooperative and doesn't seem to want to make a move on anything. We are 
doing this because we have to do this. We are doing this because this 
is important.
  And no matter, again, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, there 
will be other Members here, I would hope that whoever is President 
then--no matter what party, whoever controls the majority of Congress--
no matter what party, this is not political. This is not about party. 
This is not about trying to do anything, as far as I am concerned, 
except reestablishing Congress' right to declare war.
  I don't know what is more important than war and peace. I certainly 
don't think Congress ought to start giving away its responsibilities.
  I have been in this body a long time, and we have constantly argued 
against the administration--no matter who was in that administration--
from usurping the roles that Congress has, from taking away 
congressional power, not only on matters of peace and war, but on 
everything; earmarks or anything you want to say.

[[Page H1621]]

  Congress has just sort of said to the President: Go ahead, you make 
the decision. We are just sort of along for the ride. We are kind of 
observers. We are observers.
  Well, we are not observers. We are people who care very dearly about 
the Constitution.
  And, again, I conclude by saying, Congress has the right to declare 
war. Only Congress has the right to declare war. That is what we are 
affirming today, and why I hope we get votes from both sides of the 
aisle. This is not a political discussion. It doesn't matter who is in 
the White House. It doesn't matter who is in Congress. What matters is 
that Congress not cede its responsibility to any other branch but its 
own.
  Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, there was reference that the taking out of Soleimani 
was an assassination. I just want to remind this body of Jeh Johnson's 
words, President Obama's general counsel at the Department of Defense, 
Secretary of Homeland Security, who I have tremendous respect for. He 
signed off on airstrikes under the Obama administration, stating that 
Soleimani was a lawful military objective, and the President, under his 
Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, had ample domestic 
legal authority to take him out without additional congressional 
authorization. I think that really puts this matter to rest.
  But let me also say that the chairman and I are very bipartisan. We 
respect this committee. We respect the integrity of this committee. We 
both see the world very much in the same way. I know the chairman is 
not a supporter of Soleimani. I believe the chairman believes, as I do, 
that the world is safer without Mr. Soleimani in it.
  The chairman and I are very staunchly pro-Israel, and are for Israel, 
and very much against the actions of the Ayatollah in Iran. So I don't 
question the chairman whatsoever.
  In fact, I take great pride in the fact that the chairman and I work 
very well together. When we disagree--and sometimes we do--we agree to 
disagree, and we do so with civility, which I think has been lost at 
times in this body, in this town. And so I want to start with that.
  I will say that all the hearings I have had, and briefings prove that 
Soleimani was a terrorist who actively engaged in a campaign of 
violence against Americans and our interests. And after not one, two, 
but three times debating this issue on the floor, I think we about said 
all we can say.
  I think we can all agree he was a brutal terrorist and that the world 
is better off without him.

                              {time}  1500

  But I have to question, why now are we debating this? Our country is 
facing a public health emergency.
  Madam Speaker, as I stated, the World Health Organization just 
announced in the time of this debate that the coronavirus is now a 
pandemic.
  As of today, there are more than 121,000 reported cases of 
coronavirus worldwide, including over 1,000 right here in the United 
States. And while the CDC maintains the likelihood of a person catching 
the disease is low, the fallout from the fear caused by COVID-19 is 
real and is causing real damage.
  Just 2 days ago, people were watching as their 401(k)s and retirement 
funds were disappearing and Wall Street saw the biggest drop in more 
than a decade. I know in my district, the city of Austin suffered a 
significant economic blow with the cancellation of South by Southwest, 
an event the chairman and I were actually scheduled to speak at 
regarding how we were the committee that works together and doesn't 
give in to toxic partisan politics.
  Last year, this conference in my hometown brought more than $350 
million to Austin, making it the most profitable event for the city's 
hospitality industry. More communities are facing economic fallout, as 
well. And the fear is only rising as we continue to see more stories.
  Several Members of Congress themselves, our colleagues, are currently 
self-quarantining after potentially being exposed to the virus, yet we 
are talking about this resolution today.
  I would just close by saying, I was back in my district over the 
weekend talking to my constituents. They were really not concerned 
about the War Powers Resolution. Their number one concern right now is: 
My God, is my child going to get coronavirus? Am I going to get 
coronavirus? When is it going to impact my backyard, my neighbors? They 
want to be safe, and they want Congress to do something.
  I am hopeful, Madam Speaker--I know they are in negotiations right 
now between the leadership of our two parties that we can come 
together, just as we did last week, in passing a $7.8 billion 
supplemental to address this crisis--that we can come together as 
Republicans and Democrats to do good things for the American people and 
to protect the American people and to make them safe.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, before I close, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, we are here today to fundamentally do our 
jobs. That is something that we ask of our troops every single day 
across the world on the front lines in places like Iraq, Syria, 
Afghanistan, and throughout Africa.
  There is bipartisan concern, bipartisan recognition that Iran has ill 
will towards the United States, that Iran is an enemy of the United 
States, that Iran wants nothing more than to see our country and our 
democracy die.
  The most solemn responsibility that we have in ensuring that that 
doesn't happen is upholding the fundamental principles of our country 
and of our democracy, of showing that we have the courage here in 
Congress to uphold that oath, that same oath that we ask our troops to 
uphold in far more difficult circumstances every single day.
  Iran is threatened by us because of the values that we represent and 
the power that those values carry in the world. It is when we abandon 
those values, when we undermine those principles, when we forget that 
oath to our Constitution that our enemies start to win.
  I have fought Iranians on the ground in Iraq. I have seen Iranians 
kill Americans. I remember how much more accurate the Iranian mortars 
were than the Iraqi ones we were used to facing. I get this, but I also 
never forget that oath that we took, and this resolution, passing this 
resolution is about upholding that oath to our Constitution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the 
Armed Services Committee and the lead Republican of the Homeland 
Security Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today, we are dealing with legislation that didn't 
make sense on January 9, it didn't make sense on January 30, and it 
doesn't make sense today.
  Today marks the third time the House has considered a version of this 
legislation in just 3 months. I am back to remind my colleagues that 
our conflict is not with the Iranian people, but with their tyrannical 
and murderous regime.
  The Iranian Government, using agents like General Soleimani and the 
IRGC, has been arming Shia militias, including Hezbollah and others 
across the Middle East for decades. General Soleimani's organization 
was responsible for the deaths of nearly 600 Americans.
  This resolution offers safe harbor to those killers.
  It offers safe harbor to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a 
designated foreign terrorist organization.
  It offers safe harbor to terrorist groups receiving advanced weapons 
directly from the Iranian Government.
  These forces are critical to the Ayatollah's clear goal of complete 
influence over the entire Middle East.
  But the American people know the regime's legacy. They know the 
Ayatollah doesn't care about the bloody cost of its terrorism. The 
legislation before the House today only paves the way for new Iranian 
aggression.
  Halting military operations and putting red tape on the Commander in

[[Page H1622]]

Chief does nothing to fix the problems in the Middle East.
  I believe this resolution makes America less safe. It makes a mockery 
of years of dedicated counterterrorism efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' for the third time in 3 months on 
coddling Iranian terrorists.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I believe I have said about everything I can say on this issue, so I 
won't take up more time of Congress, other than to say we are not at 
war with Iran. If we were, I would be the first one to say Congress has 
a responsibility to act. If Soleimani was taken out in Iran, I would be 
the first to say we need an Authorization for Use of Military Force.
  Congress does have the power to declare war under the Constitution, 
and many colleagues on my side of the aisle agree with that concept, 
but it is just not factually what is happening on the ground today in 
Iran. If that day happens, we are fully prepared to have this 
discussion. This is what I would call a premature argument to make.
  And I would say, with respect to updating the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, I 
have had several meetings with Members on both sides of the aisle, many 
of whom were not here when those were passed by Congress in 2001 and 
2002, who also agree that we should be working to modernize these 
Authorizations for Use of Military Force.
  I think there is that consensus, Madam Speaker, here today. I would 
encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I know 
Chairman Engel is also supportive of working together--to try to 
modernize these Authorizations for Use of Military Force.
  But that is not the situation on the ground today, and I cannot 
support this resolution simply for the fact it is based on a false 
premise. It will tie the hands of our Commander in Chief to respond in 
self-defense to Americans, our diplomats serving over there very 
bravely, and our American soldiers who are over there very bravely--it 
ties his hands to defend from an attack launched by Iran.
  And lastly, I say, Mr. Soleimani was not a good man. He was an evil 
mastermind of terror. For two decades he killed Americans. He brought 
the Russians into Syria. They slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent 
people in Syria. He is responsible for so much blood on his hands.
  I would close by saying--and I do think there is consensus on this 
issue, as well--that the world is indeed a better place without this 
mastermind of terror, the greatest mastermind since bin Laden was 
removed from the face of this Earth.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have said all along that this is not a partisan issue, and it 
isn't. Executive branch officials from both parties have tried to 
sideline Congress when it comes to war. It is time we said: ``Enough.'' 
It may be in the executive branch's interest to keep Congress out, but 
that doesn't make it legal or make it right.
  Madam Speaker, no one in this body mourns Qasem Soleimani, certainly 
not me. No one doubts that he was a hardened terrorist with the blood 
of Americans and others on his hands. But that is not the issue before 
us today.
  The issue is that the Trump administration decided to kill him 
without authorization from Congress, without any prior consultation 
with Congress, then misled the American people about why that was 
necessary. And then, when the administration's explanation couldn't 
withstand scrutiny, they tell us Congress had already authorized 
military action against Iran.
  Madam Speaker, I think we would know if we had voted to authorize 
military action against Iran. Those aren't the kinds of votes you 
easily forget.
  So, today, we will vote on this resolution and send it to the 
President's desk. And it carries with it a very clear, very important 
message: Congress has not authorized war, and Congress has not 
authorized war against Iran.
  It is remarkable that we even need to say this, but as is often the 
case, up is down, down is up, laws don't matter, and Congress doesn't 
matter because the Constitution doesn't matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jayapal). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of S.J. Res. 68 is postponed.

                          ____________________