Terminate the Use of U.S. Armed Forces Against Iran - H.Con.Res.83

War Powers Act

     The War Powers Resolution (PL 93-148; also sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act) was enacted by Congress over the veto of President Richard Nixon in 1973, mainly to ensure that the executive and legislative branches would share in decisions that could lead to war. The drafters sought to circumscribe the president's authority to use armed forces abroad in hostilities or potential hostilities without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization, yet provide enough flexibility to permit the president to respond to attacks or other emergencies. Since then, the law has remained the focus of controversy on the respective war powers of the president and Congress under the Constitution.

    The 1973 law requires the president to notify Congress in a timely fashion when U.S. troops are sent abroad with a strong probability that they will engage in combat. It states its primary purpose as ensuring "that the collective judgment of both the Congress and president will apply to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Varying interpretations of "collective" have been at the heart of the debate over the War Powers Resolution ever since.

    Section 5(b) of the law calls for U.S. troops to be removed from foreign territory within 60 days, unless Congress explicitly gives its approval for the troops to remain through either a declaration of war or authorization for military action. And Section 5(c) originally required the president to remove U.S. forces that are engaged in hostilities before that time if the House and Senate adopt a concurrent resolution directing such a withdrawal (concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president for his signature). However, in 1983 after the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha ruled "legislative vetoes" to be unconstitutional — effectively neutering the authority of a concurrent resolution to force the president to take action — Congress enacted legislation providing that any bill or joint resolution to require the removal of U.S. troops engaged in hostilities where no declaration of war or specific authority had been granted must be considered by Congress under expedited procedures (specifically, those in the 1976 International Security and Arms Export Control Act).

9/11 & Iraq AUMFs

    On Sept. 18, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law a measure (PL 107-40) authorizing the use of military force in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That law authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." And in 2002, Congress enacted a subsequent measure (PL 107-243) authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

    Both laws provided statutory authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in accordance with the War Powers Resolution. Specifically, each stated: "Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Each also stated that "nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

    Numerous lawmakers have consistently opposed ongoing U.S. intervention around the world, arguing that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations were not meant to be open-ended and should not apply to fighting terrorist organizations in other countries.

    The House and Senate last year passed a joint resolution (S J Res 7) that would have ended U.S. support for the Saudi-backed war in Yemen, but the Senate in May failed to override President Trump's veto. The measure, which invoked the War Powers Resolution, directed the president within 30 days of enactment to remove U.S. armed forces from "hostilities" in or that affect Yemen — unless the president requested and Congress authorized a later date, and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of U.S. armed forces was enacted.

     Also last year, the House included in its FY 2020 Defense Authorization language by Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. and Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., that would have prohibited unauthorized military force in or against Iran. The amendment adding that language was adopted by a 251-170 vote with 27 Republicans voting in favor, but the language was deleted by GOP leaders during final conference negotiations on the Defense Authorization Act (PL 116-92).

Killing of Qassem Soleimani

    On Jan. 2, the United States announced that a U.S. drone strike in Iraq had killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force. Soleimani was seen by many as Iran's second most powerful figure and has been blamed for the killing of hundreds of U.S. troops and thousands of civilians throughout the Middle East, often through local militias armed and supported by Iran.

    Iran immediately threatened major retaliation against the United States, and the Pentagon announced it was sending an additional 3,000 U.S. soldiers to the region while officially suspending its counter-ISIS mission to better protect its forces. Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the approximately 5,000 U.S. servicemembers in that country — a vote that led Trump to threaten to invoke economic sanctions against Baghdad.

    Iran has also announced it would no longer abide by the 2015 multinational nuclear deal under which it agreed to suspend its nuclear program. The agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was already on shaky ground following Trump's 2018 decision to withdraw from the accord.

    Following the strike against Soleimani, the administration officially notified Congress of its actions pursuant to the War Powers Act, albeit in a classified document. (The act requires Congress to be notified within 48 hours of the initiation of any hostilities not covered by a declaration of war or congressional military authorization.) Many lawmakers, especially Democrats, have criticized the top secret notification, arguing it was important for Americans and their congressional representatives to debate openly the details of policies that could escalate to a full-blown war with Iran.

    Members from both parties also criticized President Trump for saying the Pentagon had put together a list of 52 targets (one for each American held during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis) — including sites "important to Iran & the Iranian culture" that the U.S. would strike if Iran responded aggressively to the Soleimani attack. The targeted destruction of cultural sites is a war crime under the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Objects During Armed Conflict; faced with such opposition, Trump backtracked on Jan. 7, saying "I like to obey the law."

    Later that night Iran launched a series of missile strikes against two U.S. military facilities in Iraq that caused some damage but no casualties. In a national address the following day, President Trump announced additional sanctions would be placed on Iran — but appeared to try to de-escalate the situation by calling on Tehran to return to the negotiating table with the U.S. to pursue a deal that "makes the world a safer and more peaceful place."

Member Concerns

    Supporters of the resolution, primarily Democrats, argue that U.S. military action against Iran has never been authorized by Congress, and that the 2001 congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan and global terrorism and the 2002 authorization for Iraq do not apply. President Trump has proven to be what his critics always feared: too impetuous, too ignorant of history, and too volatile to be entrusted with grave issues of national security, they say. His actions have unleashed powerful forces in an already tenuous region — forces that could drag the United States into an unwarranted and unnecessary war of our own making. As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. argued this week: one would have to be "brain-dead' to think a maximum pressure strategy toward Iran that includes leaving the nuclear deal, imposing an effective "trade embargo," and killing the country's second-most powerful official would persuade Tehran to return to the negotiating table.

    Moreover, by classifying the administration's reasons for ordering the strike against Soleimani in its War Powers submission to Congress, they sat that the White House has heightened skepticism about the real reasons for its actions — particularly for those who remember how the Bush administration manipulated U.S. intelligence findings to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They say the president's stated willingness to engage in war crimes by targeting civilian and other cultural sites has damaged the perception of the United States throughout the world, arguing that no president has unlimited powers to wage war, especially one so demonstrably ill suited to be Commander-in-Chief. Rather than extricating U.S. forces from the Middle East as he said he would during the 2016 campaign, they say President Trump's actions are likely to deepen U.S. involvement in the region, isolate the United States from its friends and allies, provide a lifeline to Teheran's terrorist regime and lead to more U.S. deaths.

    Opponents of the resolution argue that activating the War Powers Act would tie the president's hands precisely at a time when he needs maximum flexibility to deal with the current crisis. The measure represents an unwarranted abuse of a privileged War Powers procedure which would create a dangerous precedent that could severely hamstring future presidents, diminish U.S. security and provide the Iranian regime with breathing room to plan additional attacks, they say. Targeting Soleimani was a bold act that other presidents have not, and would not have, attempted — an act that will restore a measure of deterrence against an enemy state that has refused to abide by international norms. Most Americans appreciate the president's show of strength, they say, arguing that he was fully justified in striking Soleimani in response to Iran's repeated, deadly attacks on Americans — attacks that Soleimani and Iran were planning to continue.

    They say the Obama Administration was all too willing to countenance Iranian aggression and turn a blind eye to Iranian terror, calling the 2015 nuclear accord with Teheran inadequate at best and saying there is little doubt the money Obama gave Iran and his lifting of sanctions fueled Soleimani's ongoing terrorist aggression in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. Rather than having no plan going forward, the president has already shown a willingness to de-escalate by stating "We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper, and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential." Noting that Soleimani had large amounts of American blood on his hands, they say the president's decision to preempt additional bloodshed should be applauded, not condemned. Rather than continuing to appease Teheran and engender more terror, like previous administrations, the president's bold action will ultimately save lives; at this point in time we should be united as Americans, not divided.

SUMMARY: The Rules Committee has recommended a rule that, when adopted, automatically modifies the measure by eliminating a sentence in the measure's "findings" section. Following is a summary of the measure made in order for House floor consideration.

    This concurrent resolution directs the president, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act, to terminate the use of U.S. military forces "in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military" unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of U.S. forces.

    The termination would not apply if the use of U.S. military forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or U.S. forces themselves, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

    The measure would not apply to U.S. military forces engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda or associated forces.