[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.

____________________