This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-iran-senate.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Senate Rejects Curb on Trump’s Authority to Strike Iran Senate Rejects Curb on Trump’s Authority to Strike Iran
(about 8 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday voted down a bipartisan measure that would have required President Trump to get Congress’s permission before striking Iran, after Republicans balked at infringing on the president’s war-making powers at a time of escalating tensions with the Islamic republic.WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday voted down a bipartisan measure that would have required President Trump to get Congress’s permission before striking Iran, after Republicans balked at infringing on the president’s war-making powers at a time of escalating tensions with the Islamic republic.
Mr. Trump has said he has the power to launch a military strike against Iran without Congress’s permission, and in effect, the Senate agreed.Mr. Trump has said he has the power to launch a military strike against Iran without Congress’s permission, and in effect, the Senate agreed.
“The president made it absolutely clear that he is not interested in starting a war with Iran,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told reporters on Thursday. He added, “Everybody ought to take a deep breath.”“The president made it absolutely clear that he is not interested in starting a war with Iran,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told reporters on Thursday. He added, “Everybody ought to take a deep breath.”
The Iran measure highlighted growing unease after years of Congress ceding its constitutionally granted war powers to the presidency — but that discomfort has not reached anything like critical mass. The measure, which needed 60 votes to pass, failed 50 to 40 on Friday afternoon, despite Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, all Republicans, breaking ranks to join Democrats who voted in favor.The Iran measure highlighted growing unease after years of Congress ceding its constitutionally granted war powers to the presidency — but that discomfort has not reached anything like critical mass. The measure, which needed 60 votes to pass, failed 50 to 40 on Friday afternoon, despite Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, all Republicans, breaking ranks to join Democrats who voted in favor.
In an unusual accommodation to Democratic senators returning from Thursday’s presidential primary debate in Miami, the vote was kept open on the Senate floor for over 10 hours, which may have set a record for the longest vote in modern Senate history.In an unusual accommodation to Democratic senators returning from Thursday’s presidential primary debate in Miami, the vote was kept open on the Senate floor for over 10 hours, which may have set a record for the longest vote in modern Senate history.
“We must tell the president and affirm to the American people that we will assume our constitutional responsibility,” said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico and an author of the amendment. “And we must do so now before — through miscalculation, mistake or misjudgment — our nation finds itself in yet another endless war.”“We must tell the president and affirm to the American people that we will assume our constitutional responsibility,” said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico and an author of the amendment. “And we must do so now before — through miscalculation, mistake or misjudgment — our nation finds itself in yet another endless war.”
Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers of Congress — spooked by the president’s admission that he called off a military strike against Iran, and by the refusal of administration officials to affirm that the president could not use a 9/11-era authorization of military force to go to war — have tried to reclaim the legislative branch’s authority.Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers of Congress — spooked by the president’s admission that he called off a military strike against Iran, and by the refusal of administration officials to affirm that the president could not use a 9/11-era authorization of military force to go to war — have tried to reclaim the legislative branch’s authority.
In a letter on Friday to Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, said the administration “to date” had not interpreted the 2001 measure as providing an authorization to go to war with Iran, “except as may be necessary to defend U.S. or partner forces engaged in counterterrorism operations.” Mr. Engel called that “a loophole wide enough to drive a tanker through.”In a letter on Friday to Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, said the administration “to date” had not interpreted the 2001 measure as providing an authorization to go to war with Iran, “except as may be necessary to defend U.S. or partner forces engaged in counterterrorism operations.” Mr. Engel called that “a loophole wide enough to drive a tanker through.”
The House’s version of the Iran amendment has brought together the oddest of political bedfellows: Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California and one of the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and one of Mr. Trump’s most dogged allies in Congress.The House’s version of the Iran amendment has brought together the oddest of political bedfellows: Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California and one of the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and one of Mr. Trump’s most dogged allies in Congress.
“This amendment affirms what President Trump knows and believes: unfocused, unconstitutional, unending wars in the Middle East make America weaker, not stronger,” Mr. Gaetz said.“This amendment affirms what President Trump knows and believes: unfocused, unconstitutional, unending wars in the Middle East make America weaker, not stronger,” Mr. Gaetz said.
The Senate provision, written by Mr. Udall; Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia; and Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, would not have curtailed the president’s ability to repel an attack, but it would have stymied his ability to initiate unauthorized strikes. For several years, lawmakers of both parties have suggested that Congress reclaim its authority as the branch of government empowered to make war, but each time it has come to a vote, most lawmakers have declined that responsibility.The Senate provision, written by Mr. Udall; Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia; and Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, would not have curtailed the president’s ability to repel an attack, but it would have stymied his ability to initiate unauthorized strikes. For several years, lawmakers of both parties have suggested that Congress reclaim its authority as the branch of government empowered to make war, but each time it has come to a vote, most lawmakers have declined that responsibility.
“We don’t want war with Iran,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana. “I agree with the president’s restraint, but if Iran threatens to attack again, we should leave all options open.”“We don’t want war with Iran,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana. “I agree with the president’s restraint, but if Iran threatens to attack again, we should leave all options open.”
Though a legislative curb on the president’s power is struggling, the debate will not end. House Democrats are likely to take up a similar measure and attach it to their version of the annual defense policy bill, which passed the Senate on Thursday. That measure would be one of several policy provisions that congressional leaders will have to reconcile before the defense policy bill can be sent to Mr. Trump. Though a legislative curb on the president’s power is struggling, the debate will not end. House Democrats are likely to take up a similar measure and attach it to their version of the annual defense policy bill, which passed the Senate on Thursday. That measure would be one of several policy provisions that congressional leaders will have to reconcile before the defense policy bill can be sent to Mr. Trump. House Democrats are intent on using their new seat at the table to rein in military spending and check presidential power on a slew of other issues, including declaring war with Iran, using military funds and building a wall at the southwestern border.
House Democrats are intent on using their new seat at the table to rein in military spending and check presidential power on a slew of other issues, including declaring war with Iran, using military funds and building a wall at the southwestern border.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the policy bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, 86 to 8. Senators said their bill’s total military spending number — $750 billion, the largest military budget to date — is the “bare minimum.”The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the policy bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, 86 to 8. Senators said their bill’s total military spending number — $750 billion, the largest military budget to date — is the “bare minimum.”
“Are we going to help our military continue to rebuild? Are we going to give our all-volunteer force the equipment, training and housing that they need to do their job?” asked Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “That’s what this bill provides.”“Are we going to help our military continue to rebuild? Are we going to give our all-volunteer force the equipment, training and housing that they need to do their job?” asked Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “That’s what this bill provides.”
Included in that bill is a 3 percent pay increase for troops and $3.6 billion to replenish funds for military construction projects repurposed for the national emergency declared on the southwestern border, much of which Mr. Trump wants for his wall.Included in that bill is a 3 percent pay increase for troops and $3.6 billion to replenish funds for military construction projects repurposed for the national emergency declared on the southwestern border, much of which Mr. Trump wants for his wall.
But House Democrats have made clear that they will set their own agenda. They are offering $733 million, a number based on previous testimony from Defense Department officials that Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, has called “very generous.” It also includes the 3 percent pay raise for troops.But House Democrats have made clear that they will set their own agenda. They are offering $733 million, a number based on previous testimony from Defense Department officials that Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, has called “very generous.” It also includes the 3 percent pay raise for troops.
“For years, Democrats sat in the minority and had to live with certain Republican provisions in previous iterations of the N.D.A.A.,” said Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “But the fact remains, Democrats are now in the majority, and while we can all agree on more than 95 percent of this year’s N.D.A.A., the bill will inevitably reflect Democratic values.”“For years, Democrats sat in the minority and had to live with certain Republican provisions in previous iterations of the N.D.A.A.,” said Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “But the fact remains, Democrats are now in the majority, and while we can all agree on more than 95 percent of this year’s N.D.A.A., the bill will inevitably reflect Democratic values.”
Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, noted that even the Democratic spending level would be the largest defense budget in history. Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, noted that even the Democratic spending level would be the largest defense budget in history. “We also have to accept that there is a lot of money sloshing around the system,” Ms. Slotkin said. “The right place to be is ‘yes,’ an increase, ‘yes,’ a pay raise, ‘yes,’ a significant Defense Department budget — but not without accountability.”
“We also have to accept that there is a lot of money sloshing around the system,” Ms. Slotkin said. “The right place to be is ‘yes,’ an increase, ‘yes,’ a pay raise, ‘yes,’ a significant Defense Department budget — but not without accountability.”
Divisions on the normally bipartisan bill were illustrated this month when the House Armed Services Committee voted to advance the legislation 33 to 24 — one of the panel’s most partisan votes in years.Divisions on the normally bipartisan bill were illustrated this month when the House Armed Services Committee voted to advance the legislation 33 to 24 — one of the panel’s most partisan votes in years.
“There were too many problematic provisions in the bill for most Republicans on the committee to overlook,” said Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. “There were too many problematic provisions in the bill for most Republicans on the committee to overlook,” said Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Among those provisions are the border-wall ban and a prohibition on the transfer of new detainees to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Among those provisions are the border-wall ban and a prohibition on the transfer of new detainees to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
As in the Senate, the Khanna-Gaetz Iran amendment has yet to garner support among Republican leaders. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the hawkish No. 3 House Republican, dismissed the measure this week as unconstitutional. “Congress should never limit the president’s ability to defend our nation,” she said.As in the Senate, the Khanna-Gaetz Iran amendment has yet to garner support among Republican leaders. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the hawkish No. 3 House Republican, dismissed the measure this week as unconstitutional. “Congress should never limit the president’s ability to defend our nation,” she said.
The House this month passed an amendment to a separate military spending bill that would repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force that provided Congress’s blessing to use military force only against nations, groups or individuals responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and the only member who voted against approving the war authorization in 2001, had tried for years to successfully pass such a repeal, only to be thwarted each time by Republican leadership. The House this month passed an amendment to a separate military spending bill that would repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force that provided Congress’s blessing to use military force only against nations, groups or individuals responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and the only member who voted against approving the war authorization in 2001, had tried for years to successfully pass such a repeal.
“With the administration continuing to dangerously escalate tensions with Iran and publicly floating utilizing the 2001 A.U.M.F. as a legal basis for military action against Iran,” Ms. Lee said, “this vote sends an important signal to the administration that it cannot take military action against Iran without prior congressional approval.”“With the administration continuing to dangerously escalate tensions with Iran and publicly floating utilizing the 2001 A.U.M.F. as a legal basis for military action against Iran,” Ms. Lee said, “this vote sends an important signal to the administration that it cannot take military action against Iran without prior congressional approval.”