Hearing of the House Committee on Rules - Ranking Republican Cole: "This is premature and hasty"

Hearing

Our hearing today is on an emergency item arising under the War Powers Resolution concerning Iran.

As the committee is aware, I've long been supportive of Congress exercising its authority with respect to war powers. As a matter of fact, I've often had the opportunity to work with my good friend, our Chairman, on matters on occasions. I am a firm believer that Congress has a role in committing America's military to battle. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states clearly that the president cannot commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. This is a debate we should have as a Congress.

I am glad that my friends on the other side are now interested in debating the issue of congressional authority. They were certainly unwilling to stand up to President Obama's significant intervention in the Libyan Civil War. I note that, in contrast to President Obama's lengthy intervention, the action President Trump took was limited and designed to neutralize a dangerous individual who had been designated as a terrorist for the last 13 years.

Nonetheless, with today's resolution, I believe the majority is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. The resolution today arises following last week's action in which U.S. Armed Forces killed Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist leader responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the wounding of thousands more. It also follows last night's events, in which Iran fired more than a dozen missiles at U.S. military facilities inside Iraq, and President Trump's speech to the nation this morning on this action.

The Department of Defense has said that it struck Soleimani in response to active plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and in the Middle East. The president very clearly has the legal authority under Article II of the Constitution to use defensive military force in response to immediate threats to American personnel, even in the absence of congressional approval.

Mr. Chairman, earlier today, members received a classified briefing on the president's action, yet the fact that we would be holding a hearing on this resolution was announced in the press long before that briefing was held. Further, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is planning to hold a hearing on this very issue next Tuesday -- well after we will have already considered this resolution. Discussing this resolution before receiving that briefing and before we have all the facts strikes me as premature, particularly given the developments last night and this morning.

I also note that when Speaker Pelosi announced we would be considering this resolution, she did so only in a Dear Colleague letter to Democrats. She then sent an updated letter to only Democrats. Surely if anything should be bipartisan, it should be a topic as serious as war powers. Announcing such a resolution only to one party is hardly a bipartisan approach to this important issue -- and further evidence that this is about opposition to the president rather than being an exercise in congressional authority.

The resolution is also premature for another reason. The War Powers Resolution clearly lays out a procedure for considering a resolution to direct the president to remove American forces engaged in combat. That procedure requires a referral to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which then must report a measure out within 15 calendar days. In total, entire congressional consideration of this important issue -- including a potential conference committee -- could be completed within 42 days. Simply put, in moving forward now with this resolution at the Rules Committee, we are skipping that important committee process.

This is not regular order, Mr. Chairman. We should have a debate on authorizing military force. We should have a debate on committing the American military to an armed conflict. We cannot have that debate if we skip regular order and push ahead blindly to a vote. And we cannot have this debate until we have all the facts.

But that is not what the resolution before us today is about. Today's resolution is about whether the president has the authority to protect Americans in light of clear evidence of an impending attack. The president not only has the authority -- he has the duty.

It is worth noting here the sequence of events. We have had a series of Iranian actions first aimed at ships in the Gulf, then an aimed attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, then multiple rocket attacks on American forces inside of Iraq by the Shia militias aligned with the Iranian government. It only was when an American was killed and American soldiers were wounded and General Soleimani was frankly violating a UN resolution by being in Iraq in the first place that the president felt compelled to react.

Again, I feel that we are moving much too rapidly, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to lose the possibility of bipartisan cooperation on an issue where I know you and I have a great deal of common ground on and have worked together in the past on. And frankly, I hope we have the opportunity to work together again in the future.

I think we are premature and hasty here.

With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Source