Should Congress Try to Block the Use of Military Force Against Iran? (H. Con. Res. 83)

What is H. Con. Res. 83?

(Updated January 18, 2022)

This resolution would direct the president to terminate the use of U.S. military forces to engage in hostilities against Iran or any part of its government or military unless Congress declares war, enacts an authorization for use of military force, or the use of force is necessary to protect the U.S. from an imminent attack. It was introduced in response to the recent escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Iran, such as the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani — who led Iranian-backed militias in Iraq & Syria in addition to providing support to designated terror groups such as Hamas & Hezbollah — and Iran’s ballistic missile strikes on bases in Iraq.

The legislation wouldn’t prevent the president from using military force against Al Qaeda or associated forces; limit the executive branch’s requirements under the War Powers Resolution; affect provisions of a subsequent congressional authorization of military force; prevent the use of appropriate military force to defend U.S. allies and partners; or authorize the use of military force.

The resolution also includes several findings, including that:

• Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities throughout the Middle East, many of which were spearheaded by Soleimani.

• The U.S. has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks, including against diplomatic personnel serving abroad.

• That the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a window of opportunity to deter an imminent armed attack, and what harm would possibly result from missing that window.

• The U.S. has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region by combating terrorists such as ISIS, preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability, and supporting the people of the Middle East who demand human rights and an end to corruption.

• The American people and members of the Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation of the use of military force, and the War Powers Resolution requires congressional consultation.

As a concurrent resolution, this legislation is non-binding and wouldn’t advance to the president’s desk if approved by both chambers of Congress. Past Supreme Court rulings raise questions about the constitutionality of using of concurrent resolutions (rather than joint resolutions which require a presidential signature) to effect a legislative veto.

Argument in favor

President Donald Trump’s decision to eliminate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani through the use of military force was disproportionate and raises the risk of an escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Iran into an all-out war. This resolution would make it clear that the president must receive authorization from Congress before starting a protracted war with Iran without undermining the military’s ability to defend itself.

Argument opposed

Congress shouldn’t waste its time by considering a non-binding resolution that won’t do anything to restrain the executive branch’s war powers with respect to Iran. House Democrats are using this resolution to score political points and undermine the action taken to eliminate Iranian General Soleimani, who was responsible for killing hundreds of Americans & destabilizing much of the Middle East.

Impact

The U.S. military; Iran; Congress; and the president.

Cost of H. Con. Res. 83

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced this resolution to require President Trump to seek congressional authorization before taking the U.S. into a protracted war with Iran:

“This resolution is intended to make clear that, if the President wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress. This is simply what our Constitution requires. If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the President owes the American people a public conversation about why and for what ends. The resolution I am introducing today is intended to have that debate, as our Founders intended, and to be clear with the public on whether their body has authorized a war with Iran. As members of Congress, we have a constitutional responsibility to uphold when it comes to authorizing the use of military force.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) added in a dear colleague letter in support of this resolution that “the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials” and “endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.”

In his remarks to the nation following the strike that killed Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, President Donald Trump said the following:

“Under my leadership, America’s policy is unambiguous: To terrorists who harm or intend to harm any American, we will find you; we will eliminate you. We will always protect our diplomats, servicemembers, all Americans, and our allies. For years, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its ruthless Quds Force — under Soleimani’s leadership — has targeted, injured, and murdered hundreds of American civilians and servicemen. The recent attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq, including rocket strikes that killed an American and injured four American servicemen very badly, as well as a violent assault on our embassy in Baghdad, were carried out at the direction of Soleimani… Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years. What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved. Just recently, Soleimani led the brutal repression of protestors in Iran, where more than a thousand innocent civilians were tortured and killed by their own government. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.”

Because this legislation is a concurrent resolution that couldn’t reach the president’s desk, as opposed to a joint resolution that would, it wouldn’t be considered binding or pass constitutional scrutiny based on a past Supreme Court ruling. In  (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that a legislative veto through a one-House simple resolution or a two-chamber concurrent resolution under the Immigration and Nationality Act were unconstitutional. In 1994, the House voted on a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution to withdraw U.S. forces from Somalia, but both the resolution’s sponsor & the Speaker of the House expressed the view that because of the Chadha ruling, the resolution would be non-binding.

This legislation has the support of 134 cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats. The lack of Republican support makes its consideration in the Senate highly unlikely.

Of Note: Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, which functions as a combination of an external intelligence agency and special operations unit. The Quds Force itself is considered a terror organization by the U.S., and supports several terror groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas & the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza & the West Bank, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. The Quds Forces’ activities in Iraq contributed to the deaths of more than 600 American military personnel and the wounding of thousands more in Iraq. Soleimani, along with a senior leader of an Iraqi Shia militia sponsored by Iran, was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad in January 2020.

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) Press Release

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Dear Colleague Letter (In Favor)

• White House Statement by President Donald Trump (Context)

• Congressional Research Service (Context)

• Countable - War Powers Resolution (Context)