Thread by @RepSlotkin

Today, the House will vote on two amendments that address Congress’s role in authorizing the use of military force.

Given that my War Powers Resolution passed the House on January 9, I thought it important that we put all of these votes into context.

Bottom line: these votes help start a necessary conversation on the gravest decisions we in Congress are asked to make -- whether or not to send our troops into war.

For many of us, this is not a theoretical exercise.

As an Army wife & stepmom to a daughter & son-in-law in the Army, I feel strongly that issues of war and peace should be publicly debated.

Congress has been derelict in its responsibility for ~20 yrs, under both Dem. & Republican leadership, to seriously address these issues.

The President derives authority to use military force from two sources: (1) the Constitution and (2) Congressional authorization.

The Constitution makes clear that the President always retains the right to self defense against imminent threats, even without coming to Congress for approval in advance.

I support this critical right to self defense against imminent threats. And I know from my experience at the Pentagon that there’s simply no way to wait for Congressional approval if an attack on the U.S. or our people is imminent.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (WPR) with bipartisan support. It says:

POTUS must notify Congress within 48 hrs of initiating the use of military force.

Military force must be terminated within 60 days unless POTUS receives Congressional authorization.

President Trump provided that written notification after killing Qassem Soleimani.

My bipartisan War Powers Resolution simply reiterates the very point of the original WPR:

POTUS must seek Congressional authorization if he intends to use protracted military force against Iran.

There are currently two Congressional authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) on the books:

1. The 2001 AUMF, which authorized President Bush to use military force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

This 2001 AUMF is very much in use today, as it allows for counter-terrorism operations against Al Qaeda affiliates such as ISIS.

I am a big believer that the 2001 AUMF should stay on the books until a suitable replacement can be debated and approved.

But the 2001 AUMF does not authorize war against the state of Iran.

2. The 2002 AUMF authorized President Bush to use military force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Given that Saddam fell in 2003, most believe this is an outdated, unnecessary authorization.

The 2002 AUMF also does not authorize war against the state of Iran.

In fact, Secretary of Defense @EsperDoD publicly affirmed in a House Armed Services Committee hearing on December 11, 2019 that the Administration does not currently have authorization to use force against the state of Iran.

So what is Congress voting on today? Two pieces of legislation meant to clarify the authority the President does and does not have in using military force:

1) @RepRoKhanna’s amendment, which says that the President does not currently have the authorization to use protracted force against Iran, and prohibits the use of federal funds for any such military action in or against Iran unless Congress specifically authorizes it.

2) @RepBarbaraLee’s amendment, which would repeal the 2002 AUMF that authorized military force against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Bottom line: today's votes contribute to the conversation that started earlier this month around my WPR.

Together, they reiterate what's in the Constitution: no President can take the U.S. into war without engaging the American public and coming to Congress for authorization.

We owe it to our military –– and to ourselves as a nation –– to provide our troops clarity, and to abide by the Constitution they have sworn their lives to protect.