1.

Issues: Iran

CURRENT LEGISLATION ON U.S. POLICY ON IRAN

Friends Committee on National Legislation
February 12, 2007

http://www.fcnl.org/iran/leg_chart_110th.htm

Date introduced: 1/12/207. Bill Number: H.J.Res. 14. Calling for: Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran. Introduced by: Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC 3rd). Total Cosponsors: 36 (30 Democrats, 6 Republicans): Grace Napolitano (D-CA 38th), John Larson (D-CN 1st), Hank Johnson (D-GA-4th), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1st), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL 9th), Peter Visclosky (D-IN 1st), Leonard Boswell (D-IA 3rd), Thomas Allen (D-ME 1st), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD 1st), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th), John Olver (D-MA 1st), Richard Neal (D-MA 2nd), James McGovern (D-MA 3rd), Barney Frank (D-MA 4th), Marty Meehan (D-MA 5th), Michael Capuano (D-MA 8th), Gene Taylor (D-MS 4th), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MI 1st), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ 8th), Tim Bishop (D-NY 1st), Gregory Meeks (D-NY 6th), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY 14th), Michael McNulty (D-NY 21st), Walter Jones (R-NC 3rd), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd), Peter DeFazio (D-OR 4th), Robert Brady (D-PA 1st), John Murtha (D-PA 12th), Luis Fortuno (R-PR At-Large), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI 1st), John Duncan (R-TN 2nd), Ron Paul (R-TX 14th), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX 18th), James Moran (D-VA 8th), Jim McDermott (D-WA 7th). Status: Referred to Foreign Affairs Committee. Does FCNL Support? Yes. This joint (potentially binding) resolution would require the president to obtain congressional approval for any use of force against Iran, barring an attack or "a demonstrably imminent attack" by Iran on the United States or its military. The resolution also states that no measure previously passed by Congress gives the president authorization to take military action against Iran. -- Text: Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran. (Introduced in House) HJ 14 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 14 Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 12, 2007 Mr. JONES of North Carolina introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs JOINT RESOLUTION Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran. "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN. (a) Rule of Construction -- No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran. (b) Requirements -- Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran."

Date introduced: 1/24/2006. Bill Number: S.Res 39. Calling for: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any offensive military action by the United States against another nation. Introduced by: Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). Total Cosponsors: 2 (Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Robert Byrd (D-WV). Status: [R]eferred to Foreign Relations Committee. Does FCNL Support? Yes. -- Text: Expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any offensive military action by the United States against another nation. (Introduced in Senate) SRES 39 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 39 Expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any offensive military action by the United States against another nation. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 24, 2007 Mr. BYRD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any offensive military action by the United States against another nation. "Whereas the United States has the best trained, most effective military in the world; Whereas the United States military is made up of dedicated, patriotic men and women; Whereas the men and women in the United States military reflect the highest values and the spirit of our Nation; Whereas the United States Government has the responsibility to ensure that the men and women of the United States military are provided for to the fullest extent; Whereas the United States Government has the responsibility to make certain that the lives of the men and women of the United States military are never put at risk without the utmost consideration; Whereas military action by the United States must not be undertaken without the most careful preparation; Whereas the Constitution of the United States is designed to meet the needs of the Nation in peace and in war and to meet any common danger to the Nation; Whereas, in time of war and periods of emergency, in particular, the constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances are most critical; and Whereas offensive military action by the United States must not be undertaken without full and thorough debate in the Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate -- (1) that, under the Constitution of the United States, it is the Congress that has the power to take the country from a state of peace to a state of war against another nation; (2) that the framers of the Constitution understood that the President, in an emergency, may act to defend the country and repel sudden attack, but reserved the matter of offensive war to the Congress as the representatives of the people; (3) that the Senate affirms the requirement under the Constitution that the President seek approval of the Congress before the United States undertakes offensive military action against another nation; (4) that consultation by the President with the Congress on any United States undertaking of offensive military action against another nation must allow sufficient time for the Congress to fully debate the matter and shape national policy; and (5) that any offensive military action by the United States against another country shall occur only after the Congress has authorized such action."

Date introduced: 1/31/2007. Bill Number: H.R. 770. Calling for: Prohibit funding for military action against Iran or covert action against the Iranian government. Introduced by: Rep. Barbara Lee (CA-9th). Total Cosponsors: 5: Lynn Woolsey (D-CA 6th), Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th), Maxine Walters (D-CA 35th), John Conyers (D-MI 14th), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th). Status: [R]eferred to Armed Services Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Does FCNL Support? Yes. -- Text: Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (Introduced in House) HR 770 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 770 To prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 31, 2007 Ms. LEE (for herself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. CONYERS, and Ms. WATERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. -- "A BILL To prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Numerous bi-partisan commissions and study groups, including the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, a 2004 working group established under the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a 2001 Atlantic Council of the United States Working Group, co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton, James Schlesinger, and Brent Scowcroft have called for various forms of dialogue and engagement with Iran in order to achieve United States strategic interests in the Middle East region. (2) Implementing effective strategies to deflect or deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or pursuing the development of nuclear weapons capabilities, is an important United States strategic interest. (3) Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the United States and would enhance the stability and security of the Persian Gulf region, including by reducing the threat of the proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing other United States foreign policy objectives in that region. (4) The Iraq Study Group Report states `Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state', and therefore, the Government of the United States should build upon this mutual interest to develop a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran concerning deteriorating conditions in Iraq, which can become a basis of broader future United States-Iranian engagement. (5) Given the dispersal of Iran's nuclear program at sites throughout the country and their proximity to urban centers, the use of military force against Iran would be extraordinarily difficult and probably ineffective, the immediate consequences and loss of life would be drastic, and the long-term instability generated would be against long-term United States interests in the region. (6) Any military action designed to eliminate Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons would run the significant risk of reinforcing and accelerating the desire of the Government of Iran to acquire a nuclear deterrent and compounding nationalist passions in defense of that very course, and would most likely also generate hostile Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. (7) Together, the ongoing efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) along with corresponding multilateral sanctions recently adopted by the United Nations Security Council offer a viable path for steering Iran's nuclear efforts along peaceful lines, provided that there is close multilateral coordination and steadfastness in the adherence to the sanctions and firm United States leadership in support of the multilateral effort. (8) According to the most definitive United States intelligence reports, Iran is likely a decade away from acquiring the know-how and material to have an option to build a nuclear weapon, and even the most pessimistic analysis by outside experts puts the timeline at least three years away, assuming Iran suffers no setbacks during development, which would be unprecedented. SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of Congress that -- (1) full diplomatic, political, and economic relations between the United States and Iran cannot be normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are put in place to prevent weaponization of Iran's nuclear program and the Government of Iran ends its support for international terrorist groups, but the attainment of these policy objectives should not constitute preconditions for any diplomatic dialogue; and (2) no congressional authorization for the use of military force in any Act of Congress enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act constitutes, either implicitly or explicitly, an authorization for the use of military force against Iran or its nuclear program. SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY. It is the policy of the United States not to enter into a preemptive war against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, and then only in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization. SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Government of the United States may be used to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization."

Date introduced: 1/23/2007. Bill Number: H.Con.Res. 43. Calling for: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group. Introduced by: Rep. Ron Paul (TX-14th). Total Cosponsors: 12: Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1st), Thomas Allen (D-ME 1st), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD 1st), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th), Richard Neal (D-MA 2nd), Marty Meehan (D-MA 5th), Gene Taylor (D-MS 4th), Walter Jones (R-NC 3rd), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd), John Duncan (R-TN 2nd), Ron Paul (R-TX 14th). Status: Referred to Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asiz. Does FCNL Support? Yes. -- Text: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report. (Introduced in House) HCON 43 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 43 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 23, 2007 Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TAYLOR) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report. Whereas immediately after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Government of Iran signaled to the United States a willingness to cooperate in the effort to find and capture the perpetrators of that attack; Whereas immediately after the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Government of Iran sent a message to the United States Department of State proposing a broad dialogue with the United States, suggesting a willingness to cooperate on nuclear programs, accept the State of Israel, and terminate Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups; and Whereas the President of the United States recently praised the work of the Iraq Study Group, stating that the administration, `benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton': Now, therefore, be it: Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President of the United States should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states: `Under the aegis of the New Diplomatic Offensive and the [Iraq International] Support Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.'"

Date introduced: 1/16/2007. Bill Number: H.Con.Res. 33. Calling for: Sense of Congress on Military Action Against Iran. Introduced by: Rep. [Peter] DeFazio (OR[-4th]). Total Cosponsors: 36: Ed Pastor (D-AZ 4th), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ 7th), Mike Thompson (D-CA 1st), Lynn Wollseay (D-CA 6th), George Miller (D-CA 7th), Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th), Fortney Stark (D-CA 17th), John Larson (D-CN 1st), Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd), Mazie Hirono (D-HI 2nd), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL 9th), Leonard Boswell (D-IA 3rd), Elijah Cummings (R-MD 7th), John Olver (D-MA 1st), James McGovern (D-MA 3rd), Barney Frank (D-MA 4th), Michael Capuano (D-MA 8th), John Conyers (D-MI 6th), Betty McCollum (D-MN 4th), Steven Rothman (D-NJ 9th), Donald Payne (D-NJ 10th), Rush Holt (D-NJ 12th), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY 14th), Michael McNulty (D-NY 21st), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY 22nd), David Price (D-NC 4th), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th), David Wu (D-OR 1st), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd), Peter DeFazio (D-OR 4th), Darlene Hooley (D-OR 5th), John Murtha (D-PA 12th), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX 25th), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX 30th), Peter Welch (D-VT At-Large), James Moran (D-VA 8th), Rick Boucher (D-VA 9th), Nick Rahall (D-WV 3rd), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2nd). Status: Referred to Foreign Affairs Committee. Does FCNL Support? Yes. -- Text: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. (Introduced in House) HCON 33 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 33 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 16, 2007 Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. FARR, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. LEE, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. STARK, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CAPUANO, and Mr. MURTHA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. Whereas Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power `to declare war,' to lay and collect taxes, to `provide for the common defense' and general welfare of the United States, to `raise and support armies,' to `provide and maintain a navy,' to `make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces,' to `provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions,' to `provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,' and to `make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States'; Whereas the Constitution also grants Congress exclusive power over the purse, `No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law'; Whereas the sole war power granted to the executive branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section 2, which states, `The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States . . .'; Whereas President George W. Bush and his Administration have argued that this `Commander-in-Chief' clause grants the President wide latitude to engage United States military forces abroad without prior authorization from Congress; Whereas the President further argues that previous unilateral actions by presidents of both political parties add credence to this interpretation of the Constitution; Whereas in reality, nothing in the history of the `Commander-in-Chief' clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the executive branch the authority to engage United States forces in military action without any prior authorization from Congress, except to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats; Whereas in the Federalist Paper Number 69, while comparing the lesser war-making power of the United States President versus the King of Great Britain, Alexander Hamilton wrote, `. . . the President is to be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.'; Whereas James Madison declared that it is necessary to adhere to the `fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature'; Whereas in 1793, President George Washington, when considering how to protect inhabitants of the American frontier, instructed his Administration that `no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after [Congress] have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure'; Whereas in 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary powers; he told Congress that he was `unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'; and he further noted that it was up to Congress to authorize `measures of offense also'; Whereas with respect to Iran, according to the most definitive United States intelligence report, Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear weapon, and even the most pessimistic analysis by outside experts puts the timeline at least three years away, assuming Iran suffers no setbacks during development, which would be unprecedented; Whereas diplomatic efforts involving Iran, the United States, the European Union, Russia, the People's Republic of China, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United Nations Security Council continue; and Whereas, despite these diplomatic efforts and statements by President Bush and other members of his Administration that diplomacy is the preferred route, there are an increasing number of reports that preparations for war are underway: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress -- (1) strongly believes initiating military action against Iran without congressional approval does not fall within the President's `Commander-in-Chief' powers under the Constitution; (2) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-40, the authorization of force resolution approved in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran, including over its nuclear program; (3) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-243, the authorization of force resolution approved by Congress to go to war with Iraq, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran, including over its nuclear program; and (4) strongly and unequivocally believes that seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary, but is a legal and constitutional requirement."