noting the time i will be brief i was privileged to work with representative brown and offer a very simple amendment that reclaims the congress's constitutional role. the amendment says there can be no funds used to go to war with iran unless the president first comes to the united states congress to seek authorization to do so or if there is a threat of attack on the united states consistent with the president's use of his powers under the war powers act. this amendment should be

noncontroversial. it's actually not even making a determination about the war on iran with this body to decide the matters of war and peace with article one of the constitution. even this president has recognized that we've spent $7 trillion in endless wars as he put it in at least and it hasn't advanced our own interest as articulated by this administration which worries that china is our greatest rival. to put it in some perspective 24% of the world gdp, china is about 15% and iran is .55%. historians will wonder what we e were doing in the region that is a council of 3.5% of global gdp if the focus is how to get ahead of china. there is a reason that they haven't been in the war since

1979 and has been devoting its resources to building its economy. for this amendment is to reassert our constitutional values but it's also to prevent another strategic blunder we will go to seniority to mr. conaway. >> thank you mr. chairman. confident you can do it in three. the amendment would talk about is created by the tackle in the united states the territorial possessions and armed forces instead of an attack by iran and proxies, someone unrelated altogether what triggers the

attack? which section is this referring to? that is how yo you interpret it thainterpreted thatis and what . it's the implication that iran is the attacker and should have been better clarified in the amendment itself to lay that out, but i oppose that implementopposed it imeth rpect?

>> are you yielding time to somebody? i will take that. >> the president hasn't declared a national emergency again iran.

always of great concern is the language coming out of the administration officials to suggest that they have authorization to go to iran and to clarify that they do not. we are in a national emergency situation with respect to iran and it's been certified and renewed in every single administration. we worry that actually in section three, we attempted to restrain the branch and you've given them all the justification they needed to make war with iran because indeed they are

continuing to say we are in a national emergency situation, situation where respect to iran we have multiple instances in the past three decades of iran and its proxies attacking american forces. though they satisfied both criteria, under section three of your amendment, i worry that it's doing the exact opposite of what it's trying to do and i won't yield back the balance of my time. >> the time has been yielded. we've taken time on this amendment. >> thank you mr. chair. i will yield my time over. >> just to reiterate, there are no new authorities granted in the resolution. so, it reiterates the authorities under the war powers act. your idea for this gives the

executive branch new authority or more authority is just not true at all. the text of the amendment reiterates those let's just been real about the situation here. the reason we are having this discussion is not only because this administration and previous administrations have used the 2001 au mf to justify the war that has nothing to do with the september 11 attacks over the last two decades. but also because the members of this administration including some of whom are the same people who pushed us into the war with iraq have been warmongering to get us into iran and that has been cleared from not only to press reports, but the briefings that we have had in congress. i fought them on the ground in 2004. i know that they have threats as much as anyone. if i wasn't concerned about getting into a needless

unnecessary war, we wouldn't have this discussion or this amendment, and i'm sure that you would not have said you like this. if this amendment because of the constitutional situation that we are and where congress refuses to have a debate for the use of military force. so, this doesn't give any new authority to the executive branch but it does send a message that perhaps for the first time since 2001, congress might actually take this have to do our constitutional duty and have a debate before on other administration pushes us into an unnecessary war. i have no problem whatsoever going to war with iran if it is necessary. i'm just not confident in this administration that they will make the decision on their own. and by the way, they don't have the constitutional authority to do so. i yield my time.

>> we will yield my remaining time. >> i appreciate representative gallagher's thoughtful back-and-forth. i just want to make a distinction between a national emergency classification, which is what we have with iran come into the national emergency as defined by the war powers act which requires a national emergency created by an attack upon the united states from its territory or its armed forces. .. >> that you just want to

acknowledge that he will work on this now i will yield my tie back. >> just to put it upon one - - a point on those issues what my colleague is conflating that the war powers resolution and with the iranian sanctions with that emergency economic powers act with the unique - - economic emergency and not conflating those two is important i yield back the remainder of the time. >> it was very déjà vu leading

up to the first iraq war. and to see this administration in the manner they did to us and the justification without going into details terrified us too much on - - to whatever manner that we can and to restrain any crazy attempts to lead us to an unjust like the administration did i yield back my time. >> thank you mister chairman you don't have a monopoly to fight with those iranians on the ground. >> will the gentleman yield quick. >> i understand.

>> i understand equally as well. >> i don't think this is about article one versus article to at all. this is very clear with this administration that the top commander requested to the arabian gulf based on credible intel that was multi- sourced that many of us were briefed on and the intelligence community in this briefing stated very clearly a body of evidence shows the iranians back down with conventional force with officers and leaders to change the policy to withdraw under the iranian administration and those that kill americans in iraq so my

concerns is that it has nothing to do with the a ums against iran. this is misguided for echo what is really concerning is it is unclear with the ability to defend israel. no carveout for allies. would we do if israel comes under attack what do we do with the straits of hormuz if an ally comes under attack? to conduct those efforts in the pacific syria, yemen we could go on and on in terms of proxies and threat networks add the number of incredibly complicated and difficult

iranian activities and essentially we are taking options off the table. and the maximum pressure campaign is working and we have seen a de-escalation in the theater. i'm glad we haven't gotten past this is really about article one or article two right when the policy is working to look united abroad and i would encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> with a gentleman yield quick. >> yes. >> i think your question about limiting responses about

israel being attacked is very legitimate and should be a concern of everybody on this committee that there is nothing in this amendment that limits our ability to respond because once again there is no power taken away from the war power resolutions whether existing law or this provision the president could immediately respond by using us military to defend israel then report within 48 hours with a resolution. on that situation is hard to imagine we wouldn't. there are numerous provisions that guarantees but to your point it does take options off the table. you are right about that. takes his options off but the only one it takes off are the unconstitutional ones. that's the whole point of this

amendment thank you for yielding. >> i reclaim my time. >> we could argue on the constitutionality with the war powers act. that what it is sending to our enemies and our allies we are at a critical point with the pressure campaign. but is not responsible to have the adversary to have a history that is not with the united states. >> i will recognize myself for this amendment. this is no mystery we don't

feel that a ums line - - a ums should be used to take action against iran. that is the perfect this amendment they gave the many opportunities to say that and they did not say that we are taking that option off the table because we feel that it is an unconstitutional abuse of power and this is not the only one that have taken the aumf from 2001 to use that. now they have a lot of other justifications to respond as my colleague can explain better but now to say you should not use the

inappropriate authority but stay within the law. and to give the president a fair amount of flexibility mister turner. >> there is so many things that are wrong with us. first let's start mister gallagher should take a victory around the room on the statement that he fought in iran that means iran fought him. a number of the armed forces i think that means it proves the argument that is like checkmark satisfied although not the intent but that legislative malpractice it is just horrible language. mister moulton statements of course they give authority of the war powers act. know. it doesn't say that. except for otherwise. it does not say nato or under article five and it is okay.

it doesn't have any other exception clauses the attacks on iran. it is not clear of course the president could protect israel if it was attacking them this is not even necessary from what was said in the prior statements there was nobody from the administration that they have current authority to go into iran. those of the words we are using to go into iran. no one from the administration is ever said that. now if you don't want them to use the a ums then say that. don't say this. this is the worst language that is so incredibly

important especially when you consider our allies and that interest in what we try to do to help to support the allies in the area to blanket lee try to restrict that there is so much in this bill i would never say thank god for the senate. but they got for the senate there is so much in this bill that is so horrifically written that it will never become law. but for goodness sakes to draw legislation that is readable and understandable to be interpreted with protection of the united states of national security interest and this is not it. >> will you yield for a question?

>> yes. we'll pretend that did not happen and he still has time. >> i yield. >> if there was language of the 2001 aumf did not authorize force against iran would that send one --dash settle your drafting concerns? >> i was listening carefully to your argument would it satisfy your concerns if within the nda and congress that the 2001 aumf does not authorize hostility to iran? >> but what they said was their intent at least you had something written in english can. to what they are espousing. i am not voting for that. but again there was no one from the administration that said they would do that. these are outrageous steps to be taken for something that has never been said it is not

even in front of us to debate. >> i recall a briefing that information was shared that is not consistent with what you just said regarding the connections with the 2001 aumf and i ran. but the notion that the administration is never maintained that there are elements to authorize hostilities to iran is not my understanding of what they said to us. >> i can assure you that nobody stood in front of you

to said the 2001 aumf on behalf of this administrated on - - ministration gave them a sufficient authority what they said they would comply publicly and privately. >> time is expired. >> if we would back down just a few minutes all of us would want to have a situation with a resolution of congress to proceed any war with iran. we have seen that in past situations with iraq one and

two and it should occur if there is a situation to engage in a war with iran. the language in this particular amendment is flawed. and therefore has raised many many questions i believe that most of us would like to see resolved so there is clarity the house armed services committee would be in a position to carry out its consultation on - - constitutional obligation to declare war and what would be a very significant light. the other purposes to make it clear we believe it is our

obligation to debate and decide on behalf of the american people if we want to war with iran. the language before us and dealing with some of those concerns that have been expressed but i would like to see this go forward on the floor there will need to be clarity on the matter i would urge all of us democrat or republican or conservative to work together to make it clear

the ambiguity that exists today could create a war that we have not authorized. part of that has seen in the current language as mister gallagher has pointed out the administration has been using the word emergency over and over again. and what he has expressly expressed his concern about we have to be very careful that we shoulder the responsibility given to us by the constitution that we agree to accept. so this is a message to all of us.

and we need to address this issues. >> i will vote for it even though there are flaws as written. i would like to see this on the floor. for more than a decade we have asked for a debate for use of force afghan one and iraq to a - - aumf have been discussed but never debated on the floor. beer on the cusp of another fight in the middle east and we need to be involved. i want this to go forward by mister turner and mister gallagher and other but it's really important to say we have taken this up. but let it be known that this committee that has the

fundamental responsibility will be heard before the war commences and with that i yelled back. >> i am very sympathetic to the constitutional concerns expressed today and many times previous. on the point about flaws in this language. the senior general officers responsible for operations on the joint staff were asked to look at the language what difference it would make to them so this language if enacted would limit the inherent rights of self-defense at a time when we have specific detailed and credible threats in the

centcom ao are and immediately stop purely defensive intel sharing air defense and border security and dealing with partners in the region with information related capabilities directly countering the iranian threat networks from ct and classified quarterly briefings we need to be careful about what we do. [inaudible conversations]

>> can i pose a question if it was changed to a simple one sentence that was suggested that nothing in the 2001 aumf authorizes war against iran would you support something like that? >> i would certainly consider it. the reason i hesitate is because we have not updated the 2001 aumf sawicki has been expanded through the course with isis and a variety of terrorist actors. iran could be involved talk about the terrace not the state of iran.

so you have to see the complication. i do not believe for what it's worth, 2001 au mf authorizes military force against the state of iran. >> i would be in support to say something as simple and elegant as that i don't know how to do that procedurally that what i think it's a simple way to do it and it doesn't complicate things. i do think it is messy resolution but a positive thing to do. to be intellectually honest without going into classify details we were absolutely

presented with f4 for more formal presentation of the 2001 aumf could authorize war. secretary pompeo said it in his own words. he did not say want to go to iran using 2001. he referenced the relationship between iran and al qaeda. so just let me finish. that to me once you open that door you asked for an answer and the one sentence i understand if it is a messaging thing but to me that seems the minimalist way to still preserve two off on - -

author military force. >> i have great respect for you as you know talking about national security issues so i appreciate you have clarified your concern of the perception of what the secretary of state has said. i understand your extrapolation from that statement to this concern. it was not expressly stated but i understand your extrapolation and concern from their. that was incredibly honest statement. i did not share the same concern because i believe the very public statement he made later and clearly that they would be following the law. my issue and concern is where i was incredibly that the war

mongering that occurred to the au mf in 2001 but yet went to go full on regime change of the command to get clarity but my concern is because people are trying to be perfect - - protected making mistakes of what we could be doing wrong. i don't think this concludes the debate. this is premature.

at the president well if you share - - if you go to iran. i share your concern. >> there is no ambiguity it prevents united states from defending allies if there is an attack on saudi arabia uae kuwait israel jordan or whoever and i hope everybody looks at the language to decide for themselves what it says. paragraph b come in general to be provided subsection c nine of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the department of defense or any other department or agency may be

use of military force in or against iran. what are the exceptions? there are three. that limitation of subsection b shall not occur if it has declared war or statutory authorization for such use of military force and if some is enacted in the defense of the allies a national emergency is created upon the attack of the united states and armed forces. we get intelligence if iran is under attack this language prohibits the united states

from getting that kind of attack to save the lives that would otherwise be lost. i urge this committee to vote against it. >> mister chairman. two points i agree the 2001 aumf to apply to iran but to be clear the 2,012,003 we keep it that simple in the second part is to go with this wording something about allies. saudi arabia missile defense forces allies under attack to be used to interdict this just

talks about so this this to be simple that aumf does not apply. >>. >> here we are 17 hours after starting this hearing. i have been scratching my head looking for ways to overlook the issues that they can fix the problems but we have an

amendment with centcom and the joint staff to make america less safe preventing us to protect our allies like israel. that's where i draw the line and enough is enough if this amendment passes there is no way i could vote for this if you agree with it or not asked the question what it will take to get this over the finish line and pass it forward to support the troops to secure the national security why each and every one of us to republican or democrat sits on this committee to begin with debating ways to support the military to keep america safe and secure may have an amendment in front of us senior military leadership

that tell us read make america safe and secure. help my colleagues will think very deeply about that and oppose the human - - the amendment with the rest of us pico i yield back. >> there are many members of this committee that are adamant to make sure the legislative branch uphold that side of the bargain and that we don't use the 2001 aumf to supersede the war powers resolution a lot of people want to do that. a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the language so explain clearly

don't tell me who agrees to that but honest conversation how it doesn't create the problems described and if we can respond to that with article five. plain language conversation. >> i appreciate the conversation and the constructive criticism coming from intellectual debate. the resolution allows the president the authority under the war powers act to take immediate action and if there is a imminent threat or any treaty ally under the current law this president if israel was attacked tomorrow doesn't

need the authorization of congress or doesn't have to come to congress for 60 days nothing any of us can do changes that authority under the current law unless we repeal the war powers resolution passed in 1973 so having representative brown's solution that was drafted by the national security network you can disagree but these are serious. >> i am reclaiming my time. >> that make sense that the war powers resolution still applies but it is a piece of legislatio legislation. >> it depends on how we pass it none of those are to be

made available by the department of defense except if congress has declared war to enact that specific statutory authorization it does not say in that exception pursuant to the war powers resolution. >> the very last section says nothing could be construed with use of force or to relieve the executive branch and to modify the war powers act so nothing in this act is construed that will empower

the president that makes sense to me. >> not that i'm a wonderful wordsmith i think if there was time we could easily come up with language to satisfy this is of the same as the bill and that last portion does not change anything so what i'm trying to say this is one of those things if they were

given time to take to the floor have enough people talking how would impact specifically in addition the timelines. >> will the gentlemen yield quick. >> if we were to back off on this and give some time to work on it your assurance to bring something to the floor i don't think everybody is that far away from a potential solution. >>. >> whatever works. >> and to update the au mf and

that is not an easy thing to do. it is incredibly complicated everybody will interpret that a thousand different ways and i will tell you that i want to make clear i absolutely want to do that and will. it was my initial preference to do that and i can walk through that and miss my --dash and to take this up on the floor and i am under no illusion here but we do have a

majority in the house and to pass this on the floor if they agree to it or not. it would be good if we could work on this on the floor for constitutional lawyers. >> out of respect for you and leadership i am happy to do that ultimately to have gallagher explain in 1982 but the appropriations act from nicaragua to promote under a and second and i fundamentally

believe representative brown and moulton addressed all the concerns and i want to make that clear. to understand that skepticism and those that have afforded those to pick up that language to say let's wait and do other things to say in good faith and of those non- intervention issues when we talked we would

like to see a genuine bipartisan effort even if we can't get that bipartisan effort we will have a vote on the floor on this issue and the language problem and to say listen clearly. i show it to another group of people and they say the exact opposite. there is a lot of competition and if the gentleman word withdrawal. and i don't think and then to make sure that's ready for the floor. we withdraw the amendment.

>> so with that withdrawn you are recognized on your amendmen amendment. >> mister chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> we will dispense the amendment. >> we would increase the authorized number of special immigrant visas and with the visa but there is still so much more work to be done. to bring safety to those men and women who risk their lives to risk their lives they

looked at america

this is a simple amendment restorers something that the current market is prohibiting d