[Pages S4589-S4599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1790, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2020 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

McConnell (for Inhofe) modified amendment No. 764, in the
nature of a substitute.
McConnell (for Romney) amendment No. 861 (to amendment No.
764), to provide that funds authorized by the Act are
available for the defense of the Armed Forces and United
States citizens against attack by foreign hostile forces.
McConnell amendment No. 862 (to amendment No. 861), to
change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 863 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 764), to change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 864 (to amendment No. 863), of a
perfecting nature.
McConnell motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Armed Services, with instructions, McConnell amendment No.
865, to change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 866 (to (the instructions)
amendment No. 865), of a perfecting nature.
McConnell amendment No. 867 (to amendment No. 866), of a
perfecting nature.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Business

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
scheduled for noon today be at 11:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

S. 1790

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as the leader and I announced yesterday,
we have an agreement in place to vote on passage of the Defense
authorization bill today and then on an amendment to the bill tomorrow,
led by Senators Udall, Kaine, Merkley, Murphy, Paul, and Lee, to
accommodate all Senators who wish to vote. That is why we are doing it
tomorrow. If the Udall amendment is passed, it would be adopted to the
Defense authorization bill even though the vote occurs afterward.
I want to thank the leader for understanding our position that the
Senate ought to vote on this important amendment, which in essence
would prohibit funds for hostilities with Iran without an affirmative
authorization from Congress. Congress gets to approve or disapprove
wars, period. It is crucial for the Senate and Congress as a whole to
examine potential conflicts and to exercise our authority in matters of
war and peace.
Let's start with the facts. Ever since President Trump withdrew from
the Iran nuclear deal, our two countries have been on a path toward
conflict. For the past month, we have been locked in a cycle of
escalating tensions with Iran. Iran attacked a tanker in the Gulf
region and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone. The U.S. Government has
responded to both provocations, and the President reportedly considered
and then pulled back on a military strike.
The American people are worried--and rightly so--that even if the
President isn't eager for war, he may bumble us into one. Small
provocations in the Middle East can often spin out of control. Our
country has learned that the hard way. When the President is surrounded
by hawkish advisers like John Bolton and Secretary Pompeo, the danger
is even more acute.
So while the majority leader says that ``no one is talking about
war,'' that is only true until the folks do start talking about war,
and by then, the chance to clarify that this President requires
congressional authorization before engaging in major hostilities may
have passed us by.
And this not talking about war? Well, the President said he was 10
minutes away from major provocation, if the reports are correct. It
would have been on Iranian soil, three missile bases. And the President
at one point said, in effect: We will smash Iran, blow it to
smithereens--or something to that effect. People are talking about war.
This President is.

[[Page S4590]]

Even though it is plainly written in the Constitution that the
legislature alone, not the Executive, has the power to declare war, the
Trump administration is already signaling that it doesn't need
Congress. The President and his team are playing up links between al-
Qaida and Iran, potentially setting the stage for them to claim legal
authority under the sweeping 2001 authorization of military force to
strike Iran without congressional approval.
The President himself, asked if he believes he has the authority to
initiate military action against Iran without first going to Congress,
replied, ``I do.'' He continued, ``I do like keeping Congress abreast,
but I don't have to do it legally.''
So when it comes to a potential war with Iran, Mr. President Trump,
yes, you do. You do. You do.
The Founding Fathers--our greatest wisdom in this country--worried
about housing war powers in the executive branch for precisely this
reason.
As James Madison wrote to Jefferson, who was not there when they were
writing the Constitution--he was plenipotentiary to France--here is
what Madison wrote to Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of
power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war to
the Legislature.

That is Madison, who put more into this Constitution than anyone
else.
Let me read it again. It is clear as a bell. Madison wrote to
Jefferson:

If there were ever a President who fits that description, it
is Donald Trump.

The Framers worried about an overreaching Executive waging unilateral
war. My colleagues know well that we haven't had an overreaching
Executive like the one we have now for quite some time, if ever. So if
it comes to it, we should expect the President to challenge Congress's
war powers. He has basically already told us that he would.
So my colleagues should vote to strengthen our ability to oversee
this President's strategy with Iran. That is what the bipartisan Udall
amendment would do--nothing more. There has been some fearmongering
about how the amendment might tie the hands of our military. It would
not. It is explicitly written that in no way should it be construed to
prevent the U.S. military from responding to an act of aggression or
from acting in self-defense.
It is high time that Congress reestablish itself as this Nation's
decider of war and peace. We have been content too long to let the
Executive take all of the initiatives and responsibility for military
action abroad. The American people are weary of the endless conflicts
in the Middle East and the loss of American lives and American
treasure.
The Udall amendment would mark the beginning of Congress reasserting
its constitutional powers. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to vote yes tomorrow.

G20 Economic Summit

Mr. President, President Trump has arrived at the G20 economic summit
in Japan before traveling for a state visit in South Korea. Already,
the President has managed to insult our longstanding allies, including
Germany and Japan, the host nation.
Rather than undermining our alliances, here are two important things
the President should do at the G20:
First, Russia and Vladimir Putin. When President Trump sits down with
the Russian President, he must send an unmistakable warning that the
United States will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections
in 2020. President Trump has no excuse. The Mueller report, FBI
Director Wray, virtually our entire intelligence community concluded
that Russia was guilty of interfering in our elections and that 2020
would be the next big show.
President Trump has a responsibility to defend the United States. By
directly challenging Putin, he will send a signal not merely to Putin
but to all of our adversaries that interfering with our election is
unacceptable and that they will pay a price--a strong price--for
trying.
Second, China and President Xi. Now that trade negotiations between
our countries seemed to have stalled, there is a chance to put them
back on track. For that to happen, the President must remain strong. He
cannot go soft now and accept a bad deal that falls short of reforming
China's rapacious economic policies--cyber espionage, forced technology
transfers, state-sponsorship, and, worst of all, denial of market
access.
President Trump, you know it. We have talked about it. You have a
once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform China's economic relations
with the world and put American businesses and American workers on a
level playing field. Stay tough. Don't give in. Make sure Huawei cannot
come to the United States and we cannot supply it. Enough with the
criticism for our allies. Aim it at our adversaries, China and Russia,
and you will have a much better chance of making the G20 a success for
American interests.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.

S. 1790

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on
whether to disarm our troops as they face a growing campaign of Iranian
aggression in the Middle East. Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on
whether to empower the Ayatollahs as they continue to rampage across
the Middle East, attacking U.S. aircraft, attacking ships in the high
seas, threatening our troops in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain,
Qatar, and elsewhere. That is because we will be voting tomorrow
morning on an amendment that says, very simply: ``No funds may be used
to conduct hostilities against the Government of Iran, against the
Armed Forces of Iran, or in the territory of Iran, except pursuant to
an Act or a joint resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such
hostilities.''
That amendment is simple--I would say simple-minded--but it is simply
an act of appeasement against the Ayatollahs who are currently
conducting attacks against the United States and our interests on a
regular and growing basis.
Let's just take a case in point. The earlier version of this
amendment included no exception--no exception whatsoever--for our
troops to defend themselves against an attack by Iran. You might say
that is a careless omission. I would, however, say that even the fact
that it was changed after I pointed out that omission just goes to show
you that the root of this amendment is Trump derangement syndrome.
It does have an exception now. Let's look at that: ``Nothing can be
construed to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces to
defend''--to defend--``against an attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.''
What does that mean? What does it mean to defend against an attack? I
don't know. I am not sure. If an F-15 pilot is shot upon in
international airspace, I guess he can deploy countermeasures--chaff--
to disrupt the missile. Can he shoot back? Can he shoot back at the
Iranian missile battery that shot at him?

Let's say our troops who are garrisoned in places like Iraq and Syria
have incoming mortar fire by an Iranian proxy militia. I guess they can
duck and cover in a concrete bunker. I guess that is defense. Can they
use counterbattery fire to shoot back at that mortar firing position? I
don't know. I don't know. Can they? Beats me.
We have thousands of troops stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, the main
airbase from which we conducted operations against the Islamic State.
Let's say they have a missile coming in. I guess they can use a patriot
missile defense system to shoot that missile down. Can they fire back
at the missile battery that shot that missile, which has many more to
fire? I don't know. Can they? It seems like offense to me. Maybe it is
defense.
Let's take a page from history. In 1988, Ronald Reagan authorized one
of the largest naval engagements since World War II in response to the
exact kinds of attacks against commercial shipping and the U.S. Navy on
the high seas that we have seen from Iran in the last 2 weeks. However,
that operation didn't commence for 4 days; it was 4 days after a U.S.
Navy frigate hit one of the Iranian mines before we struck

[[Page S4591]]

back. Is that in defense against an Iranian attack? It doesn't seem
that it would be, to me. I don't know.
What we are debating here is how many lawyers can dance on a head of
a pin when our soldiers are in harm's way. They need to know that when
they are shot upon, they can fire back, and they can eliminate that
threat without any politician in Washington or any lawyer at the
Department of Defense looking over their shoulders and second-guessing
them. That is not what they get from this amendment, though.
Consider also the consequences. Many of the speakers today will say
this is about deescalating tension in the Middle East--deescalating.
Who is escalating it? Who is the one firing on American aircraft? Not
Donald Trump. Who is interfering with the freedom of navigation on the
high seas? It is not Donald Trump; it is the Ayatollahs. They are the
ones who have manufactured this crisis because they know that the
United States is on the strategic offensive and that we have the
initiative against Iran for the first time in 40 years.
This amendment, though, would only embolden them to continue the
campaign of the last 2 months of gradually marching up the escalatory
ladder. It started with threats. Then it was an attack on foreign
vessels at port. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels on the high
seas. Then it was an attack on an unmanned American aircraft. Next it
might be an attack on a manned American aircraft or a U.S. ship. And
the message we are going to send is this: Well, the Congress thinks
that the Commander in Chief and, for that matter, battalion commanders
on the ground don't have the authority and the flexibility they need to
take the appropriate response, as opposed to cowering inside bunkers
and using some defensive measures.
Let's also think about the language of this amendment. A lot of
people are going to come here and say that this is about our
constitutional authority, and we need to reclaim our authority, and we
have given up too much authority to the executive branch. In a lot of
instances I would agree with that. But this amendment is only about
Iran. It is not about China; it is not about Russia--even though this
President has forced our Democratic friends to finally discover their
inner cold warrior.
This is only about Iran in the context of Iran shooting down an
American aircraft just a week ago. What better message can you send
that this is not about our constitutional authority? This is about
trying to tie the hands of a Commander in Chief whom they dislike at a
time when a foreign nation is targeting our aircraft and our
servicemembers.
This amendment would be a loud and clear message to the Ayatollahs
that we will not strike back, that they can escalate even further, and
that there will not be swift reprisal. If there is, it will generate
intense controversy in our country. It will only embolden them further
to march up that escalatory ladder and threaten American lives. It is a
hall pass for Iranian escalation, really.
Look, there is no amendment, no bill, no paper resolution that can
change the iron laws of geopolitics. Strength deters and weakness
provokes. Wars are not won by paper resolutions. They are won by iron
resolution. But this amendment embodies irresolution, weakness,
timidity, diffidence.
This Congress on a good day can rename a post office, and that is
only after months and months of debate about the post office. Are you
telling me--are you telling me that if Iran shoots down an American
aircraft or continues attacks on partners like the United Arab
Emirates, then this Congress in a matter of minutes and hours is going
to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to respond to that
kind of provocation? Please.
There is a reason we have one Commander in Chief, not 535 commanders
in chief--or, I say again, 535 battalion commanders, the level at which
some of these decisions ought to be made.
Think about the kind of debates we have, the know-nothings we have
seen here in Washington over the last couple of weeks who would say:
Oh, it wasn't Iran that made the attack. OK, it was Iran, but maybe it
wasn't authorized by the senior leadership of Iran. OK, it was
authorized, but it didn't really do that much damage. It is kind of
like the old line of: It is not my dog. He didn't bite you. You kicked
him first. That is what that debate would devolve into while our troops
are at risk.
This is a terrible amendment. It will do nothing but put more
American lives at risk and imperil our interests and our partners
throughout the region.
I know that the minority leader said earlier that he is worried about
the President bumbling into war. He said it last week on TV too.
Nations don't bumble into war.
He and others have raised the prospect of endless wars, the wars we
have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are long, and we have
made lots of twists and turns on the way. But let's not forget that
many of the Democrats in this Chamber voted to authorize those wars. We
didn't bumble into those. They were considered, deliberate decisions.
President Trump said just a couple days ago that he is not talking
about that kind of operation. He is talking about the exact kind of
thing that Ronald Reagan did in response to Iranian aggression on the
high seas. That didn't start a war. Ronald Reagan didn't start a war
when he retaliated against Libya for acts of terrorism against our
troops in 1986. Donald Trump didn't start a war when he struck Syria in
2017 and 2018 for gassing its own people. If you want a Democratic
example, Bill Clinton didn't start a war when he struck Iraq in 1993
and 1998.
This amendment purports to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief
relative only to a single nation, which just so happens to be the
nation that just shot down an American aircraft. The only result that
will come of this amendment passing will be to embolden the Ayatollahs
and make more likely that which its proponents wish to avoid.
I urge all of my colleagues to see the reality of this amendment and
to vote no tomorrow morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Udall
amendment, a bipartisan amendment. I am a proud Virginian. The
Commonwealth of Virginia is more connected to the Nation's military
service by our map, by the installations in Virginia, and by personnel
than any other State, and I am the proud father of a U.S. marine. I
love serving with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations and Armed
Services Committees.
Tomorrow we are going to vote on a question that cannot be more
fundamental: Can President Trump take us to war with Iran without
coming to Congress for authorization? That is the question. Can
President Trump take us to war with Iran without coming to Congress for
authorization? This is a matter of the utmost importance for this body,
for the American public, and for our troops. Americans, especially
those who have family serving in the military--and many of those
families have seen their loved ones deployed multiple times since
2001--want to know what each Senator thinks about this important
question.
The Udall amendment to the NDAA, which has bipartisan sponsorship, is
very simple. It states that no funds will be expended in a war with
Iran or on Iranian soil, except in self-defense, unless Congress takes
the affirmative step of specifically authorizing those hostilities.
My colleague from Arkansas talked about lawyers dancing on the head
of a pin, as he tried to suggest that ``self-defense'' was not a
clearly defined term. I think most of my colleagues who read the
language will believe it is incredibly clear; the President has the
power to defend the Nation from an imminent attack or ongoing attack
without asking anyone for permission. That is specifically stated in
our resolution. There is no confusion about it. There is no attempt to
limit a President's power to defend the Nation, but if the President
decides that we need to go on an offensive war against a sovereign
country, this amendment would suggest he could not do so unless he came
to Congress.
Those voting for this amendment will say clearly that no war should
be started unless Congress votes for it. Those

[[Page S4592]]

opposing the amendment will say clearly that it is OK for the President
to go to war against Iran whenever and for whatever reason on his own.
Those who vote against this amendment, in my view, are essentially
giving the President a green light to wage war anywhere, against
anyone, on his own. That is not a power we should give to this
President or any President. I believe, in my 6\1/2\ years in the
Senate, there has only been one vote as serious as the vote we will
cast tomorrow morning.
Why do I believe war should not be started without a vote of
Congress? The Democratic leader outlined the clear constitutional
history in this regard. It is Congress that declares war. The history
and context of that provision in article I is very plain. At that time
in the world, in 1787, war was for the Executive. It was for the King,
the Emperor, the Monarch, the Sultan, the Pope, but the drafters of the
American Constitution wanted to dramatically change history in this
Nation and say that war for the United States of America should be a
matter not for the Executive to declare but, instead, for the peoples'
elected legislative body to declare.
Once declared, the President, as Commander in Chief, needs to be that
commander. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas. You don't need 535
commanders, but it is not up to the President to initiate or declare
war, constitutionally; it is clearly up to Congress.
The reason we should vote for this isn't just because of the
constitutional provision. It is the value that underlies the
constitutional provision. Why did the Framers put the question of war
as a matter for the legislature? A congressional debate and vote is
what is necessary for the American public and Congress to fully
understand the stakes, to explain to the public and educate them why
war is necessary--and especially, and most importantly, the debate and
the vote by the legislative body is the evidence of support for the
mission that American troops deserve if they are going to be sent into
harm's way where they could be killed or injured or see their friends
killed or injured.
I believe it is the height of public immorality. There could be
nothing more immoral in the public space than to order our troops into
harm's way, where they would risk injury and death if Congress is
unwilling to consider and debate and vote on whether a war is in the
national interest.
You have to go risk your life, you have to go be with others and
potentially be injured or killed, but we don't want to have to vote on
it. Could anything be more immoral than that? What this provision does
is say that if we are going to be at war with Iran and, by example,
with any nation, Congress should have the guts and backbone to come and
cast a vote before we order our troops into harm's way.
Why is this debate important right now? We are in the middle of
discussing the National Defense Authorizing Act, but I also want to
point out two very important things, one an event and one a statement
that may have occurred in the last week, since many of us took the
floor last Wednesday.
On Thursday, a week ago today, President Trump ordered and then
called off a missile strike against Iranian territory that would have
been the start of a shooting war with Iran. It was a missile strike in
the sovereign nation of Iran. Our military and all reasonable people
understood that would have been responded to. So we were within 10
minutes. President Trump says he called off the strike on Iran with 10
minutes to spare.
We were within 10 minutes a week ago of being in a war.
The second thing that happened is, a few days ago, the President gave
an exclusive interview to The Hill saying: ``I do not need
congressional approval to strike Iran.''
Congress is irrelevant. I don't need to come to Congress.
The quote that the Democratic leader mentioned a few minutes earlier
was that the President said: It is good to keep them abreast of the
situation, but I am not legally required to do so.
How insulting for the President, who pledged at his inauguration to
defend and support the Constitution, to not recognize that the article
I branch--and we are the article I branch for a reason--must not be
just consulted with but be on board with any wars expressed by their
vote.
This President is holding the article I branch in contempt. Will we
grovel and accept that monumental disrespect or will we insist that the
President must follow the law?
For the record, I believe a war with Iran would be a colossal
mistake. Its cause would be laid significantly at our feet by the
United States and the Trump administration tearing up a diplomatic
deal, tearing it up over the objections or over the recommendations of
the then-Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security
Advisor, Joint Chiefs of Staff, tearing it up over the recommendations
of our allies, tearing it up over the recommendations of the
International Atomic Energy Agency. We tore up a diplomatic deal and
raised the risk of an unnecessary war; that would be catastrophic.

After 18 years of two wars in the Middle East, where we still have
troops deployed, we should not be fomenting, encouraging, blundering
toward rushing into a third war in the Middle East. It would suck lives
and resources away from more pressing priorities of our citizens.
Bogging ourselves down in another war against a smaller, weaker,
faraway nation would divert our attention from acting firmly to counter
our chief competitor, China.
Furthermore, another war in the Middle East would represent another
broken promise by this President. Just as he said that Mexico would pay
for a border wall, just as he promised not to cut the Medicaid Program
before supporting an effort to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and
slash Medicaid, the President criticized the Iraq war as a candidate
and said he would end wars in the Middle East, not expand or multiply
them.
I will give my colleague from Arkansas credit for having the courage
of his convictions to come and state what he has stated on the floor.
There are some in this body and the administration who have argued that
a war with Iran would be a good thing or a necessary thing. Some have
even suggested it would be an easy win. Let them come to the floor of
the Senate and make that argument in full view of the American public
and let Congress debate and vote and then be held accountable for
decisions we make about war.
As I conclude, I thank the majority leader for scheduling this vote,
and I especially thank the Democratic leader for firmly insisting it
must be held. Tomorrow we will all speak to a fundamental question
about war but also about this institution: Can President Trump take us
to war with Iran without even coming to Congress?
I hope my colleagues will stand for the Constitution. We must provide
assurance to our citizens, and we especially must provide assurance to
our troops, that war is not based on the whim of this President or the
whim of any President, but it must be based instead on a clear vote,
following public debate by the peoples' elected legislature.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I very much appreciate being joined on
the floor by Senator Kaine and Senator Merkley. I appreciate Senator
Kaine's very wise words. I think all of us are here standing up to hold
the President accountable. We believe he should follow and obey the
Constitution.
I rise to call upon this body to do its duty, to assume its
constitutional responsibility, and to make it clear that the President
cannot wage war against Iran without congressional authorization.
Whether you are in favor of giving the President that authorization or
whether, like me, you are opposed, everyone in this Chamber should vote
in favor of our bipartisan amendment because a vote in favor is a vote
to fulfill our sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. I appreciate that
at long last the Senate will finally have this debate; that we will
finally take this vote because these matters of war and peace are among
the most consequential responsibilities that fall to Congress. These
are the hard votes, and we must step up to take them.
I am proud to partner with Senators Kaine, Paul, Merkley, Durbin,
Murphy, and Lee in this effort and to call

[[Page S4593]]

upon Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities. After years
of abdicating our responsibilities on matters of war, this entire body
must stand up and show that we will not roll over for an unauthorized,
unconstitutional war. We must pass this amendment.
This dangerous course with Iran began last May when the President
unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. This hard-fought
diplomatic achievement denied Iran the nuclear material required to
even begin work on a nuclear weapon. Since this administration turned
away from diplomacy and resorted to a maximum pressure campaign to box
in Iran, the risk of war has steadily risen.
Just last week, we were 10 minutes away from a strike on Iran, 10
minutes from a nightmare of escalation in the Gulf. This week, the
President threatened Iran. I am quoting his words here--these are
pretty strong words--he said to Iran: I threaten them with ``great and
overwhelming force,'' and he used the word ``obliteration.'' That is
not diplomacy; that is a drumbeat toward war without congressional
approval.
Tensions are the highest they have been in many years, and the risk
of a costly miscalculation grows day by day. Just days ago, the
President falsely claimed he does not need congressional approval to
launch strikes against Iran. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution
could not be clearer: It is Congress and Congress alone that has the
authority to ``declare war.'' This is not a close call; the Founders
placed this responsibility squarely on our shoulders. The consequences
of going to war are profound, so this decision rests with the people's
representatives, not one person--not even one President. It is time
that Congress confront the administration's rejection of diplomacy.
Our amendment prohibits funding for military action against Iran
without congressional authorization. It does not prohibit war
altogether; it prohibits an unconstitutional war, a war that has not
been authorized by Congress.
We must be accountable to the American people and to our men and
women in uniform whose lives would be on the line. Our soldiers are
brave enough to face the danger of war. If my friends in this Chamber
believe they should, we should be brave enough to be held accountable
for that decision.
Some have claimed that this amendment would prohibit the President
from defending the United States against attack. That is wrong. It is
completely false. This amendment and the War Powers Act incorporated as
part of it allow the United States to act in self-defense. I am going
to quote from our amendment. The amendment clearly states that it shall
not be interpreted ``to restrict the use of the United States Armed
Forces to defend against an attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' It is explicit. The
United States may defend itself against an attack by Iran. The claim
that the military's hands would be tied in the event of an emergency
has no basis and cannot be used as an excuse to vote against the
amendment.
I am heartened, as Senator Kaine was and as I am sure Senator Merkley
will also say, that Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership
will finally allow debate and a vote on this amendment. This is what
the American people want and deserve.
Over the years, Democratic and Republican Presidents alike have
steadily encroached upon Congress's war powers, and Congress has
tacitly allowed that encroachment.
I stood up to President Obama when he threatened to attack Syria
without authorization, and so did many of my colleagues. I am standing
up again now because the administration's reckless actions have brought
us to the precipice of war.
Mr. Bolton and Secretary Pompeo's failed strategy has led directly to
these heightened tensions, to the brink of war, with no benefits to
show for their tactics.
The administration has reimposed and tightened sanctions on Iran
three times--sanctions we agreed not to impose if Iran agreed not to
develop nuclear capabilities.
Secretary Pompeo placed a dozen conditions on negotiations and then
withdrew them.
Just this week, at the same time that Advisor Bolton claims we will
talk with Iran anytime, the President sanctions the lead diplomat in
Iran and tweets out his threat of obliteration, shutting the door on
any diplomatic overtures.
This ping-pong diplomacy, manufactured crisis, and go-it-alone
posture further diminish our world's standing and credibility. None of
the signatories to the Iran nuclear agreement, including our closest
allies, backs us in what we are doing.
This reckless diplomacy is dangerously reminiscent of the run-up to
war with Iraq. But any war with Iran, with its military capability,
proxy forces, and a population of 80 million living in a geographically
perilous region, would be more disastrous and more costly than Iraq.
Yet we continue to march up to the brink.
According to the President's tweet last week, he stopped a strike
against Iran that he had already ordered because he learned at the last
minute that 150 lives were at stake. I know I am not alone in being
deeply alarmed at this decisionmaking--national security decisionmaking
process. I know Members on both sides of the aisle share my concerns.
We must assert our constitutional authority. We must tell the
President and affirm to the American people that we will assume our
constitutional responsibility. And we must do so now before, through
miscalculation, mistake, or misjudgment, our Nation finds itself in yet
another endless war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, our Founders recognize that no decision
carries more consequences than the decision of whether to go to war.
They were well familiar with the carnage of human lives and blood,
injuries, and treasure that our initial war, the War of Independence,
brought.
As we stand here several hundred years later, we recognize the wars
in between; that more than 400,000 Americans died in World War II, that
more than 50,000 Americans died in the Vietnam war, and that more than
4,000 Americans died in the war in Iraq. Those are just some
indications of the enormous impacts and consequences of a decision to
go to war.
It was an issue that the Founders struggled with in a republic: Where
should this immense power rest? Should it rest with one individual--the
President--or are the consequences too great to have the judgment of a
single person carry the decision to its completion?
After intense debate, after many arguments, the Founders became very
clear that this power should never rest in the hands of a single
person; that it should not just be one body but two bodies--the House
and the Senate--that should weigh in on the issue of war. The
consequences being so profound, they could not leave it to the
idiosyncrasies or the biases or the misjudgment of a single individual.
It was in fact one of the defining arguments about the difference
between a King and a President. A King could make that decision, with
often horrific consequences for the people of the kingdom, but not in
the United States of America. This is why it is so deeply embedded in
our Constitution. In Article I, section 8, under the enumerated powers
of Congress, are simply the words ``to declare war.'' That power is
vested in Congress, not the President.
The Founders weighed in time and again about this. Turning to James
Madison, the father of the Constitution, he commented:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of
power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to
the Legislature.

He went on:

The power to declare war, including the power of judging
the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the
legislature.

Madison continues:

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the
question, whether there is or not cause for declaring war.

He was the father of our Constitution. That led to this document that
vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President.
George Washington, the father of our Nation, said: ``The constitution
vests

[[Page S4594]]

the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive
expedition of importance can be undertaken until they shall have
deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.''
This was the Commander in Chief speaking. This was the hero of the
American Revolution speaking. This was the man most trusted to be the
first President of the United States, who was to steer the course and
make sure the Presidency did not become a kingship. And his conclusion?
``[T]herefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken
until after they shall have . . . authorized such a measure.''
This is enormously at odds with the vision our colleague from
Arkansas presented on the floor--dismissing the role of Congress,
dismissing the Constitution, and instead saying let the President, as
Commander in Chief, do what he will. That was not the vision.
George Mason of Virginia--if you stand in DC, you can look across the
Potomac River, and you can see a monument to George Mason. He made
notes of the Constitutional Convention. George Mason remarked that he
was ``against giving the power of war to the executive'' because the
President ``is not safely to be trusted with it.'' That was the point,
that no one individual, no matter how wise--not even a George
Washington--could be trusted with this decision. George Washington, as
President, agreed with this completely, that despite his expertise as a
Commander in Chief, it was not to be the judgment of one person.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the most brilliant minds our country has
ever produced, commented: ``We have already given in example''--
referring to the Constitution--``one effectual check to the dog of war
by transferring the power of letting him''--the dog of war--``loose
from the Executive to the Legislative.'' So he is commenting on the
Constitution and saying: We have put a check on the dog of war by
putting that power in the legislative body, not the executive.
Jefferson became President. Did he change his mind when he became
President? His initial quote I gave you was from 1789, but later he
became President of the United States. And what did he think then? He
thought the same exact thing, just as President Washington had.
Jefferson said: ``Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally
invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I
have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any
degree which could be avoided''--his message to Congress in 1805.
He recognized what the Constitution did. Are we going to recognize
the constitutional vision? Now, there may be folks in this Chamber who
simply disagree with the Founders and say that Congress is too
complicated, that the power to declare war and the power to go to war
should be vested solely in the Commander in Chief. Well, then, come and
present a constitutional amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate. You
took an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and that oath
says that power rests in this body.
If you want to change the Constitution, then, have the guts to come
down here and propose doing so. I guarantee it will be roundly defeated
because the wisdom of our Founders that it is a mistake to give the
power of war to one person is wise and does stand the test of time.
Alexander Hamilton noted the following:

The Congress shall have the power to declare war; the plain
meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive
duty of Congress, when the Nation is at peace, to change that
state into a state of war. . . .

Alexander Hamilton said: ``exclusive duty of Congress'' and ``the
plain meaning'' of our Constitution.
This viewpoint continued to carry the day far into the future.
Abraham Lincoln was speaking in 1848, and he said:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making
powers to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the
following reasons.

Those are Lincoln's words.

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their
people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the
good of the people was the object. This, our [Constitutional]
Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly
oppressions and they resolved to so frame the Constitution
that no one man should hold the power of bringing this
oppression upon us.

In the words of these great leaders of America--Washington, Hamilton,
Mason, President Lincoln--all point to the power and wisdom of putting
the decision about war with the House and the Senate, not the
President.
Now, this resolution before us says: Mr. President, there is no
foregoing authorization to go to war against Iran. It says: Any
authorization has to come after debate specifically on that topic.
And why is this? Because we have heard from the administration that
they want to use the 2001 authorization for the use of military force,
an authorization specifically about al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to
authorize war with Iran. Nothing could be more convoluted, and that is
why we need to stand up and say: That is wrong. That is not right.
Anyone who pays even just a modicum of attention knows that the
resolution to take on al-Qaida in Afghanistan is very different than
going to war against the Shiite Islam nation of Iran. But we have to
say it because the administration has been trying to prepare the case
saying this 2001 resolution somehow has a link that authorizes war.
And why are we so concerned at this moment? Why are we here on the
floor in this debate? Well, it is because the drums of war are beating
loudly. It is because the President has deployed the Abraham Lincoln
carrier strike force to the Gulf to threaten Iran. It is because the
President has preplaced a squadron of B-52 bombers to be ready to bomb
Iran. Why are we so concerned--when we have a National Security Advisor
who has said that no agreement can ever be reached with Iran and we
have to bomb them and when we have a Secretary of State who says that
no one has ever stood up to Iran and we have to teach them a lesson, or
words to that effect, and we have a President who has proceeded to say
that any attack will be met by great and overwhelming force?
So envision these preplaced forces. And, in fact, the President has
declared that a section of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary
Guard is a terrorist force. Add all of that up, and the President is
talking about looking for a trigger to apply great and overwhelming
force. That is why we are here. A response in proportion to defend a
direct attack on the United States is authorized by the War Powers Act.
That is honored by the resolution that is before us, the Udall-Paul-
Kaine amendment that is before us. That is honored. But as for the use
of great and overwhelming force the President is threatening, that is
war. That has to come before this body.
The President went on and said: ``In some areas, overwhelming will
mean obliteration.'' So for any attack? And we have heard the Secretary
of State say if there is a Shiite force in Iraq that we can tie to
Shiites in Iran and some communication, we will consider that an attack
by Iran--looking for a trigger to go to war. And the President has said
any act will be met with overwhelming force.
Not under our Constitution. You want that authority? You come here.
You want to change the Constitution? Then, come here. I say this to my
fellow Senators: Do you want to change the Constitution? Bring your
amendment to the floor of the Senate to change the Constitution.
The Constitution speaks clearly. The President has no authority to
apply overwhelming force or obliterating force and conduct a war
against Iran. Make your case here or honor the Constitution.
We are in a troubling and difficult time, and I would like to see
every Member of the Senate down here talking to each other about this.
That is the gravity of the consequences. It is not a few Members who
are here to stand up for our Constitution and the vision of wisdom in
our Constitution. This is the time, before there is that trigger in
which the President responds with great and overwhelming force and
before he responds with obliterating force. Now is the time to pass
this amendment put together in a bipartisan fashion that lays out the
fundamental requirements of our Constitution and the fundamental
requirements embraced by the Founders and the fundamental requirements
repeated and honored by the greatest Presidents who have ever served
our Nation.

[[Page S4595]]

Let us not allow the vision of our Constitution to be shredded. Let
us honor our responsibility when we took an oath in office to defend
it, and let us honor the wisdom of holding that debate on the floor,
should the President ever ask us for such authorization to go to war
against Iran.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Military Widow's Tax Elimination Act

Mr. JONES. Madam President, I approach to say how much I appreciate
my colleagues, Senator Merkley and Senator Kaine, for their eloquent
thoughts on an important issue of our time.
Let me also now rise in total frustration on a completely different
issue--but total frustration, bafflement, and, quite frankly, just
angry and disappointed in this body. I am angry because we have turned
our back for over 40 years on military families. We have turned our
backs on the widows of the very men and women who have given their
lives to protect this country, to uphold our democratic ideals, and to
make possible the very work that we are doing in the Senate and the
very work that we, as Members of the Senate and as Members of Congress,
are charged to do every day on behalf of the American people and,
particularly, on behalf of veterans and their families.
I am talking about this body's refusal to bring up the Military
Widow's Tax Elimination Act--the refusal to bring it up for a single
floor vote--despite the fact that we have 75 cosponsors--75 cosponsors
of this bill. It is the most bipartisan legislation, except for the
robocall bill, which everybody could agree on. And we can't get that to
a vote in this body?
Where have we gone wrong? Where have the rules of the body--the rules
that the leadership of both parties are operating under--gone off the
rails that we can't bring this to a vote, to just get a simple up-or-
down vote, on a process that is ripe, and that is the NDAA?
In my 17 or 18 months--I forget how many now in this body--I have had
some frustrating moments, as I know all of my colleagues who have been
here for a long time have had a lot of frustrating moments. We have
shut down this government three times since I have been a U.S.
Senator--three times. I have seen disaster relief held up for 5 or 6
months, with farmers and others needing that relief, needing that
money, needing that help, and we held it up for political reasons so
that someone can score a point because everything is seen through the
eyes of a political gamesmanship. That is how we are operating today,
and it is incredibly frustrating for those of us who want to make sure
we go forward with things when we see bipartisan efforts.
In this situation, we are talking about military families who are
getting ripped off by us. You can call it the government if you want
to, but at the end of the day, they are getting ripped off by every
single Member of this body and the House of Representatives, and they
have had it. It is no wonder that the American people think that
Congress and Washington, in general, are just completely broken. If we
can't fight for military widows and spouses, who are having their
survivor benefits shortchanged, then, for whom are we going to fight?
For whom are we going to stand up?
We always talk about standing up for the least of these. I have
people wanting to stand up for the immigrants coming across the border.
I have people wanting to stand up for corporations and to make sure
that they are paying their share of the taxes, as opposed to
overburden. I have people standing up for people every day, but here we
have a chance to stand up for people who have given their lives for
this country, and we are not doing it. We are not doing it.
If we can't do the right thing on this, with 75 cosponsors, how can
we possibly tackle immigration reform? How can we possibly tackle
healthcare reform or education in this country if we can't come to some
agreement and one simple vote when we have 75 cosponsors?
How can we not fight for people like Cathy Milford, a retired
schoolteacher from Mobile, AL, whose husband passed away unexpectedly
25 years ago from a service-connected illness just months after his
retirement from the Coast Guard? Instead of a long and happy retirement
together, Cathy has been fighting to right this wrong for all of the
some 65,000 military spouses who are hurt by the current law.
During a recent visit here to Capitol Hill, she said: ``Every time I
talk about this''--and she is up here a lot talking about elimination
of the military widow's tax--``I have to dig up my husband and bury him
all over again.''
Just think about that. Let that just sink in a minute: a military
widow, one of many of thousands, who had to return to lobby Congress
year after year at their own expense, saying she feels like she is
digging up and burying her husband all over again when she has to talk
about this issue. That is not only sad, it is shameful.

We have tried to pass this legislation. The Senate has, in some form,
repeatedly over the last almost 20 years. It has been included in the
NDAA numerous times only to be stripped out during conference. It has
been included without an immediate pay-for to offset the budget issues
that everybody kind of falls back on and hangs their hat on. We don't
have that immediate pay-for.
It has passed before. It has passed before in this body with
bipartisan support, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to get
across the finish line. For some reason, even though the bill today has
historic levels of cosponsorship, we are not allowed to bring it up for
a vote as an amendment to this NDAA. Frankly, that is the frustration.
It is a frustration that goes beyond just this bill. It is a
frustration that we can't debate on the floor of the Senate anymore. We
can't bring up amendments. I think we have brought up one amendment in
legislation in this Congress because of the rule between the leader and
minority leader. There are all these deals going on. You have to have a
Republican package; you have to have a Democratic package; you have to
play one against the other. We are constantly playing the political
games in this body when we should be working for the American people as
a whole.
That is why today, at this time, I am once again calling for our bill
to eliminate the military widow's tax, to pass it or get it voted on
and bring it to the floor and pass it on unanimous consent. Every one
of my colleagues would do well to remember that we are the ones who
should be fighting for these spouses. We are the ones. We are the only
people they can turn to. This can't be fixed on the streets. It can't
be fixed at the Department of Defense or the Veterans' Administration.
The legislature, the Congress of the United States, is the only one
that can do it, and we are the ones who should be fighting for these
military spouses, the widows and widowers whose loved ones gave their
lives for this country, the widows and widowers whose lives are forever
changed because of their family's selfless service to this country.
Caring for military families has long been part of the foundation of
our government. In President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural
address, he spoke in no uncertain terms on this obligation. In the
midst of the Civil War, he addressed a nation that had sustained
unimaginable loss--unimaginable loss--in order to preserve the Union we
so cherish.
The country was then more divided than it ever had been, and God help
us if it ever gets that divided again, but the values Lincoln asserted
during that speech were so fundamental that, even at war with itself,
it could agree on the importance.
He said this:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with
firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let
us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the
nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the
battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which we
may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among
ourselves and with all nations.

Let me repeat that critical phrase today: `` . . . to care for him
who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.''
This is the promise we have made to those who raise their hand in
service to our Nation. This is the contract, the solemn contract, that
we have made to those who have raised their hand in service to this
Nation; that we will honor and support them and care for their families
if tragedy occurs.

[[Page S4596]]

President Lincoln was assassinated just over a month after he issued
this appeal, but the weight of his words still resonate today. In some
ways, on this issue, they resonate more because in those days you could
count on the fact that the legislative body, the Congress of the United
States, heeded those words and took care of those families.
It has been 154 years since President Lincoln spoke those words; yet
the Government of the United States, the Members of this body, the
Members of the House have yet to fulfill that promise. It has been 154
years, and we still get caught up in the deals that are made as to what
gets on the floor and what does not get on the floor, the political
deals that have to be jockeyed, where we give and take, and it is one
over the other. We need to fix that today.
We need to fix it in a broader sense and let this body get back to
its real work and be the great deliberative body it is supposed to be.
We are not doing that, but that is a different issue for a different
time.
Let's start today and stand up and exhibit just a fraction, a small
fraction--a small, small fraction--of the courage that these military
spouses did on our behalf. Let's let our actions speak louder than
words simply ever could. Let's put the issue to rest and give these
widows some peace.
Let us do our duty.
It was Atticus Finch, who told the jury in ``To Kill a Mockingbird,''
as he closed out, knowing what the outcome was going to be, as I do
here--knowing what the outcome was going to be, it was Atticus Finch,
who said: ``In the name of God, do your duty.''
I say that to this body. I say that to the leadership. In the name of
God, let's do our duty to these people. Let's get behind the political
deals and let's do our duty, once and for all.

Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 269

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to set
aside the pending amendment; that amendment No. 269 be considered and
agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right, let me share a story
of something that happened.
The timing sometimes happens at very inconvenient times, but on
September 7, 2011, I was in my State of Oklahoma and was in
Collinsville, OK. Probably not many people have been to Collinsville,
OK, but I have. It was the home of a really beloved individual and
family. The family was the Chris Horton family, and the wife was Jane
Horton.
I remember it so well. This was September 7, 2011. I was talking to
the group, and I was telling them that I was preparing to make one of
my regular trips to Afghanistan. At that time, I was not chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I was a high-ranking member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In the audience was Jane Horton, and Jane said: Well, if you are
going to go over there, why don't you go by and see my husband, Chris?
I said: I will do it. I found out his whereabouts, exactly where he
was. I got over there to look up Chris, only to find out that 2 days
after I made that commitment in Collinsville, OK, that Chris died in
action. Chris died in action. I was the one who had to call on and
share that with his wife, Jane Horton.
In fact, after that, we hired Jane to go around and help us with the
widows' benefits. Starting at that time, I was the leader and continued
to be a leader long before the Senator from Alabama was into this, and
he will agree that I was actively working on this issue.

I support and will continue to support the permanent fix. It is going
to happen. We are going to do it. In fact, I am the first Senate Armed
Services chairman to cosponsor this legislation.
Mr. Jones mentioned there were 75 people who cosponsored it. That is
I. I was on there on the initial legislation and will continue to be
and will always be, and that reflects my commitment to the permanent
fix.
Here is the problem we have. There has to be a fix, but it can't be
on this bill. The reason it can't be on this bill is because it has a
mandatory spending that has no offset, and there is not an exception to
this on the bill. This is part of the agreement in bringing the bill
up.
Now, what we can do is go ahead and do what is necessary with this
very popular cause, and I will be standing with the Senator from
Alabama to make sure this happens.
Let's assume that were not true, that we couldn't do it under the
rules. Under the rules, there is another rule that, if there is an
objection to any amendments coming up, then I, as the chairman of the
committee, if the party objecting is not here, I have to offer his
objection.
There is an objection to this, and I will therefore object and be in
the strongest position of helping this to become a reality. I owe it
not just to the many people I know but also to the family whom I just
referred to from Collinsville.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Inhofe, and let
me say I know where he has been on this issue. I have seen his speeches
from years past on this issue, and I do appreciate that, and I
appreciate the fact that he is a cosponsor.
I also know this has been put on an NDAA before in this body without
a pay-for, without an offset, in order to have a sense of the Senate
and to go on record, and that is what I think we should do. I
understand we are not there this year for whatever reason. I still
believe, in part, that it is a procedural issue that ought to be put
aside for this, but that is an argument for another day.
I do so very much appreciate the chairman's remarks. I have enjoyed
working with him, Senator Reed, and others on the NDAA. That has been
an effort. I told folks back home and across the country where I have
spoken that I wish people could have actually seen what happened in
that markup behind closed doors and the bipartisanship that the
chairman showed and the other Senators showed. I wish people could have
seen it because we don't get to see it. I don't think if we opened it
up that we would have seen it, but it was remarkable.
So we are where we are in the Senate. I understand that, and I knew
that coming in here. I will simply say this. The House of
Representatives is also going to take up the NDAA, and I hope my
colleagues on the other side of the wonderful Capitol are listening.
Put it in. It is not in the committee bill. Put it in. Bring it to
conference because, if it gets to conference, I am going to continue to
have this in this NDAA, and let's get this done, once and for all.
Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, and thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bills

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might, let me describe where things
are in the state of play with respect to the supplemental
appropriations bill that deals with the border.
I know the situation at our border has been at a crisis point for
weeks now. Our agencies are stretched to the breaking point, struggling
to care for the overwhelming flow of migrants; yet we have House
Democrats continuing to play politics with the border funding bill.
Again, to describe the state of play, we had a request from the
President 7 weeks ago for $4.5 billion to address this humanitarian
crisis we are having at our southern border, and the Democrats didn't
act on it. They described it as a manufactured crisis. When I say the
Democrats, I am talking about the House Democrats, which is where most
spending bills originate.
After the House failed to act and failed to respond to the
President's request for emergency funding, the Senate decided to act.
So the Senate Appropriations Committee took up and passed a bipartisan
bill out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 1--not a
vote that you see all that often around here these days.
So that bill was reported out to the floor. In the meantime, the
House Democrats decided that maybe it wasn't, after all, a manufactured
crisis and perhaps they needed to act. So

[[Page S4597]]

they picked up a bill--a partisan bill--and passed it out of the House
of Representatives on a party-line basis, after which the Senate voted
on its bill, the bill I mentioned that was reported out of the
Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 1, and it came to the floor
where it passed yesterday by a vote of 84 to 8--84 to 8 in the U.S.
Senate.
Well, just to demonstrate that the bipartisan bill passed by the
Senate is the vehicle that should move forward and should go to the
President for his signature, the President had indicated he would veto
the House-passed bill, but we took it up. We took up the House-passed
bill yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We had a vote on it. It
got 37 votes here on the floor of the Senate--not nearly enough,
obviously, to pass the Senate. Of course, it was going to meet a
certain veto by the President even if it had.

That being said, there were 37 votes for the House-passed partisan
bill that came out of the House of Representatives. Here on the floor
of the Senate, there were 84 votes for the bipartisan bill produced by
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Where we are right now is that was sent back to the House. The House,
frankly, should just take up that bill and pass it. We know for certain
the President would sign it. Again, I think it demonstrates a body of
work that reflects the will of both sides, Republicans and Democrats--
certainly in the Senate--to get a vote of 30 to 1 out of the
Appropriations Committee or 84 to 8 on the floor of the Senate. You had
to have a high level of bipartisan cooperation.
That bill to address the humanitarian crisis at our border is
awaiting action by the House of Representatives. All they have to do is
simply pick it up and pass it and send it to the President, where it
will be signed into law, and we will get much needed resources and much
needed manpower to the southern border, where they desperately need it.
I hope that will be the case.
We are being told that the House is now considering sending yet
another partisan bill over here to the Senate. The only thing I can
tell you is, if you want to get legislation signed into law by the
President of the United States that actually does deliver and put the
much needed assistance on the ground that is desperately needed on the
southern border, the only surefire way to do that right now is for the
House to pick up the Senate-passed bill, which passed here with 84
votes, pass it, and send it to the President, where it will be signed
into law, and that $4.5 billion will be on its way to the border to
assist with all the needs down there that are currently being unmet. I
hope that can happen yet today.
That is the state of play with respect to the supplemental
appropriations bill.

Democratic Party

Mr. President, I think 2019 is going to go down in history for the
Democratic Party. It has been a notable year.
While the Democratic Party has obviously always been left of center,
I never expected to see the Democratic Party running so far to the left
of the American people or wholeheartedly embracing socialism and a
government takeover of a large part of the economy.
The socialist fantasies are rapidly piling up: a government takeover
of healthcare, a government takeover of the energy sector, government-
funded college, a government writeoff of all student loan debts,
guaranteed income, government-guaranteed housing, and on and on. So
what is wrong with that? After all, those proposals sound really nice--
free healthcare, free college, the government guaranteeing you an
income. Here is the problem: Providing all that stuff is going to cost
a lot of money, an almost inconceivable amount of money. Somebody is
going to have to pay. You might say that obviously the government is
going to pay, but the government has to get its money from somewhere.
Here is the catch: The government gets its money from the taxpayers.
Can't we just take that money from rich taxpayers? If you talk to
some of the socialist Democrats offering these proposals, they will
talk about making the rich pay. The rich are their favorite funding
mechanism. Want free college? We just get the rich to pay for it. Want
free healthcare? We can just get the rich to pay for it. There is just
one big problem with that: There aren't enough rich people in America
to even come close to paying for Democrats' socialist fantasies. Deep
down, Democrats know it, which is why they tend to get very foggy when
pressed on the details of how they are going to pay for some of their
plans.
Take the junior Senator from Vermont's proposal of a government
takeover of America's health insurance, the so-called Medicare for All
plan. A conservative estimate puts the cost of that plan at $32
trillion over 10 years. The current cost is likely much higher since
the Senator from Vermont's most recent plan for government-run
healthcare also includes long-term care, which we all know is an
incredibly expensive benefit.
The Senator from Vermont did release a list of proposed tax hikes to
pay for his proposal. The only problem is, the tax hikes wouldn't come
close to covering the estimated cost of his original Medicare for All
plan, much less the cost of his new expanded Medicare fantasy.
Of course, as staggering as the costs of Medicare for All would be--
more money than the Federal Government spent in the last 8 years
combined on everything--they pale in comparison to the cost of the so-
called Green New Deal. An initial estimate found that the Green New
Deal would cost somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10
years--$93 trillion. That is more money than the 2017 gross domestic
product for the entire world. That is right. You could take the entire
economic output of every country in the world in 2017, and it still
might not pay for the Democrats' socialist fantasy. Once you realize
that, it is pretty obvious that the Green New Deal is not a plan that
could be paid for by taxing the rich.

How about taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at
a 100-percent rate for 10 years? That wouldn't even get you close to
$93 trillion. How about taxing every household making more than
$100,000 at a 100-percent rate for 10 years? That wouldn't get you
anywhere close to $93 trillion. Like Medicare for All, the Green New
Deal would be paid for on the backs of working families.
I have talked a lot about the money aspect of Democrats' socialist
proposals, and that is one of the major problems with these proposals--
they sound nice until you realize that actually nothing is really free.
Working Americans are still going to be paying for the cost of all
those programs through new and much higher taxes.
But that is far from the only problem with some of the Democrats'
socialist fantasies. Leaving aside the fact that the Federal Government
is not exactly known for its efficiency or bringing programs in on time
and on budget, there is the tremendous cost Americans will pay in the
loss of their freedom, the loss of their autonomy. Americans are used
to choices and being able to make their own decisions. It is part of
our heritage. Those are freedoms we cherish. That is not the way things
work under socialism.
Nowhere is this more obvious than with Medicare for All. Medicare for
All doesn't give Americans health insurance options; it takes them
away. Are you part of the majority of Americans who are happy with
their current healthcare? Too bad. Medicare for All eliminates all
private insurance plans and replaces them with a single, government-
run, one-size-fits-all plan. Under Medicare for All, private health
insurance plans as we know them would actually be illegal. If you are
not happy with the government-run plan, too bad; you won't have any
other choices.
The treatment options would also be limited by what the government
decides. If the government doesn't want to pay for a particular cancer
treatment, for example, as has happened in other countries with
socialized medicine, you will be out of luck.
Then, of course, there are the long wait times that are the hallmark
of socialized medicine. Imagine having to wait months for diagnostic
imagining or needed surgery or having to stand by while your spouse or
child is forced to wait months for care. That is the kind of thing
Americans would have to look forward to under Medicare for All.

[[Page S4598]]

Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that
eventually you run out of other people's money. Once Democrats have
taken every dollar they can from the rich to pay for their socialist
fantasies, they will come after the paychecks of ordinary Americans,
who will face higher and higher taxes for fewer and fewer benefits and
greatly reduced choices. Democrats' socialist dreams would quickly trap
the American people in a nightmare.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I deliver comments on a bill that
I am introducing, let me express my disappointment that the Senate will
not be voting today on the amendment that Senator Jones and I have
filed to eliminate the military widow's tax. This is a tremendous
inequity, as is recognized by the fact that 75 of our colleagues have
cosponsored our freestanding bill.
Nevertheless, I am heartened by the commitment and the compassion of
the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Inhofe, who has
indicated his receptivity to dealing with this issue but in a different
way on a different bill. I hope that today is just a temporary setback
and that we can see this bill taken up as a freestanding bill by the
entire Senate.
Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be
appropriately referred.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be received and appropriately
referred.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2018
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 2008
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

S. 1790

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to explain the context in which I
will vote for the Romney amendment.
First, I am grateful for Senator Romney's substantive contributions
and his collegiality as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The plain text of the amendment states the obvious--that funds
authorized by the NDAA may be used to ensure the ability of our Armed
Forces to defend themselves and U.S. citizens.
I believe every Member of this body certainly shares the fundamental
understanding that our Armed Forces must have the ability to defend
themselves and our citizens against foreign enemies. Indeed, the
purpose of the NDAA is to provide the authorizations that are necessary
to ensure the Department of Defense is in a position to defend the
United States and our citizens.
In my opinion, in that respect, this amendment is not necessary. For
anyone who argues that the Romney language is somehow necessary because
of the Udall amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, I say reread
the Udall amendment. It includes an explicit exception for self-
defense.
I am concerned that this administration will seek to twist the Romney
amendment into something that is completely unrecognizable, something
that we are not voting on today, and something that has no basis in
law. As a legal matter, the amendment does nothing more than to
explicitly provide the authority to use funds under the act to ensure
this ability.
Let me be clear. This amendment does nothing more than that. Either
implicitly or explicitly, it does not authorize the use of military
force. Let me repeat. It is not an AUMF. An explicit authorization
would have to come to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee following
serious and substantive engagement by the executive branch.
It is no secret that there are some in this administration who are
eager to engage militarily with Iran. This week, the President himself
argued that he does not have to go to Congress to seek authorization.
But those who don't want to completely bypass our congressional
prerogative will be grasping at any purported source of authority that
could justify, in their minds, that Congress has authorized these
actions.
Look no further than the Secretary of State, who is purportedly
pushing the bogus legal theory that the 2001 AUMF, which Congress
passed in the wake of 9/11, somehow provides authority to use force
against Iran. Apparently, Secretary Pompeo is not dissuaded by the
facts. The plain language of the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran.
Congress did not intend for the 2001 AUMF to cover Iran, and neither
Republican nor Democratic Presidents who have operated pursuant to this
AUMF have claimed such authority.
Against this backdrop and a President who has evaded Congress in
unprecedented and unlawful ways, we must make crystal clear that the
Romney amendment cannot be abused by those in this administration who
appear to be desperate to build a case that the President has all of
the authority he needs to take us into war with Iran.
We cannot leave anything up to chance when it comes to the choice of
whether we send our sons and daughters into war. I believe we should be
having a serious conversation about our use of military force and about
what constitutes self-defense and attacks on our allies.
I am pleased that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has
previously committed to holding these hearings, and I believe we should
commence with hearings with multiple stakeholders, including the
administration itself. Previous administrations have sent up
representatives to explain to Congress their rationale for war or to
explain the type of authorizations they are seeking. We should demand
nothing less from this administration.
I support the amendment, and I look forward to continuing appropriate
oversight over the executive branch's pursuit of military action around
the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed friend and ranking
member of the Foreign Relations Committee for his kind words in support
of my amendment.
As we debate the Defense Authorization Act today, one of our most
pressing concerns is how we deter Iran from further escalating its
attacks. The decisions we make on this bill will have a direct bearing
on the options the President and the military have available to keep
our military, our citizens, and our friends and allies safe.
The Senate is poised to vote soon on my amendment, No. 861. It would
reaffirm what has long been American policy. Our military is authorized
to defend itself and to protect our citizens. Enacting this amendment
makes it clear to our military, as well as to any potential adversary,
that America does not shrink in the face of attack. This is not an
authorization to use military force against Iran or anyone else; it is
a statement of continued commitment to our national defense.
Under the Constitution, only Congress may declare war, but also under
the Constitution, the President can defend against attacks and can
respond in an appropriate manner to an attack that has been made.
As we all know, my esteemed colleague from New Mexico, Senator Udall,
has proposed an amendment on a related topic which I wish to briefly
address.
We do not need the Udall amendment to tell us what the Constitution
already demands--that Congress alone can declare war. His amendment is
clearly intended to limit the President in some other ways that he has
not yet explained to this body.
As it is written, the Udall amendment would dramatically limit the
existing authority that the Constitution provides to the President to
respond to Iran. It would prevent the President

[[Page S4599]]

from defending U.S. citizens, U.S. interests, and our allies. This is
not only my opinion; it is the carefully considered conclusion of the
U.S. Department of Defense.
In its letter on June 26 to Chairman Inhofe, it states this,
referring to the Udall amendment:

``The Department strongly opposes this amendment . . . At a
time when Iran is engaging in escalating military provocation
. . . this amendment could embolden Iran to further
provocations.''

Tying the President's hands in some undefined way in the midst of the
current crisis is misguided, dangerous, and surely sends the wrong
message to both Iran and to our allies.
Last week, the Iranians continued their provocative escalation in the
Middle East. After weeks of buildup in which Iran attacked six
commercial ships, and its proxies bombed an oil pipeline and launched a
rocket into a commercial Saudi Arabian airport, Iran shot down an
American drone over international waters.
The Udall amendment raises serious questions about how the military
could respond to these attacks after the fact. Could we fire on the
missile launcher that downed our drone? Could we sink one of their
small, outboard motor vessels that attached the mines to the ships that
were attacked?
Imagine for a moment that in the future, another American aircraft,
perhaps one that is manned by an American pilot, were to be shot down
by an Iranian rocket. It is possible that the Udall amendment would
limit our military's options to subsequently respond to such an
outrage.
I don't pretend to know whether Iran will continue its pattern of
aggression, but I do know that when bad actors think they can escape
consequence for malevolent acts, such acts are more likely to occur in
the future.
I am glad that Senator Udall's revised amendment concedes the broad
point that our military has the inherent right of self-defense. But in
the case of a rocket hitting one of our planes, the President should
not have his hands tied in responding after such an attack in an
appropriate manner.
Note also that while the Udall amendment provides for the military to
defend itself from attack, it does not provide for the defense of our
citizens. Iran could take this as an invitation to attack Americans
abroad.
Further, it would prohibit our military from defending or responding
to an attack by Iran on our Iraqi partners so long as it didn't
directly hit American troops. Passing the Udall amendment would
effectively give a green light to Iranian forces to carry out attacks
in Iraq so long as they don't attack U.S. forces.
If Iran were to attack Israel, one of our NATO allies, the Udall
amendment would not allow the President to respond.
Finally, by carving out Iranian territory, the Udall amendment would
potentially prevent us from pursuing and taking out terrorists who seek
refuge in Iran.
I oppose the Udall amendment not because I want to go to war with
Iran or rush to respond without carefully evaluating our long-term
strategy to counter Iranian aggression. I know no one who wants to go
to war with Iran.
I fully concur with my many Senate colleagues who desire to reassert
the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war. But to engage in
this effort now, and in an undefined way, and then to attach that to
Iran when Iran has just shot down an American aircraft would send a
terrible message to the Ayatollahs and to the world.
I mean, think about it. Iran shoots down an American aircraft, and
what does the U.S. Senate rush to do? It rushes to vote in some
undefined way to restrict military consequence. That is simply
unthinkable.
My amendment is not about Iran. It does not even mention Iran. My
amendment is about affirming the constitutional authorities that any
President must have to properly protect and defend this Nation.
As the Department of Defense maintains, the President of the United
States must always have the option of responding to attacks by Iran or
anyone else at a time and place of our choosing--today and in the
future.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

____________________