[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H78-H92]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 83, IRAN WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 781
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 83) directing the President pursuant to section
5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of
United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or
against Iran. All points of order against consideration of
the concurrent resolution are waived. The amendment printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The concurrent
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the concurrent
resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution,
as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question except two hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sec. 2. Section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546) shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred
Sixteenth Congress to a measure respecting Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 781, providing for consideration of
H. Con. Res. 83 under a closed rule. The resolution also provides 1
hour of general debate, controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the committee on Foreign Affairs.
Madam Speaker, the question before us today is very simple: Should
President Trump be allowed to send the United States hurtling toward
war with Iran without prior congressional approval?
It is a question we must wrestle with following the President's
actions last Thursday. That is when he ordered the lethal drone attack
on Iraqi soil that killed Iranian General Soleimani. The outgoing Prime
Minister has said the strike was carried out without Iraqi permission
or knowledge. It was done without any plan for the consequences in the
region or the world. And, more troubling still, it was carried out
without any input from the people's Representatives here in Congress.
Think about that.
Madam Speaker, just a month ago, Iran was staring down some of the
most intense antigovernment protests in a decade. Thousands took to the
streets of Tehran to express growing frustration and anger with their
leaders.
But what a difference a month makes. Protestors--men, women, and
children--have again taken to the streets of Tehran. Only this time,
their anger wasn't directed at their own leaders; it was directed at
the United States of America--all because of the President's unilateral
decision.
Madam Speaker, that is what happens when monumental decisions of war
and peace are made in a vacuum with no regard for the consequences.
Things usually don't go very well.
Rather than protect our national security and stabilize the region,
President Trump's reckless decision to strike Soleimani united Iran. It
has led to retaliatory strikes on two bases used by U.S. and coalition
forces in Iraq, and it has put our troops and diplomats serving
overseas in greater danger.
Now, make no mistake: This decision has endangered all Americans
everywhere. Hardliners are emboldened; 4,000 more U.S. troops have been
deployed to the region; operations against ISIS have been suspended;
the Iraqi Parliament has voted to kick American troops out of Iraq--all
because of the brash decision of one man: the President of the United
States.
Madam Speaker, there was no question that Soleimani was a ruthless
military commander. He had American, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and
Yemeni blood on his hands. But that is not up for debate today, nor is
the question of whether or not killing him was a good or bad idea.
The President of the United States assassinated a high-level foreign
military commander without asking or even notifying Congress
beforehand.
Madam Speaker, with little evidence, the President claims his actions
prevented an imminent threat, but the American people have heard that
one before. We remember the stories about weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq. We remember the tens of thousands of American soldiers who
paid the price for that deception.
Madam Speaker, is this Congress going to sit by and allow that to
happen in Iran, or are we going to ensure that this body acts before a
war begins that could continue long after President Trump leaves
office?
Now, the Constitution is clear; it is crystal clear. Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war, but President Trump
treated Congress as if it were an afterthought in a decision that has
destabilized the region and shaken the world.
More than 4,000 of our brave men and women are now being sent to the
Persian Gulf, all without any input from the people's Chamber.
We represent the brave young men and women who are deploying to
Kuwait; we represent those deploying to Iraq; and we represent those
deploying elsewhere across the Middle East. Each of us speaks for them,
and we speak for their families, who are scared sick as their loved
ones receive orders to deploy.
Madam Speaker, we must summon the courage to be their voice.
Now, I am glad that the United States and Iran have taken a step back
from the brink of war, but what we heard from the President yesterday
was more of the same bluster. It is clear, even after the briefing by
the administration yesterday that many of us attended, that he has no
clue at all--none--about what could come next.
Now, make no mistake: The world is less safe because of Trump's
chaotic foreign policy. The impacts of his strikes are still
reverberating in the region and across the world, and we cannot sit
silently by.
The Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief, but it gives
only Congress the power to declare war. The Founders knew that
decisions of this magnitude required consultation between the branches
of government, no matter who is in the White
[[Page H79]]
House, no matter who controls the majority on Capitol Hill.
Our Democrats don't want war with Iran; most Republicans don't want
war with Iran; and the American people certainly don't want a war with
Iran. I think that would be catastrophic. We should be stopping costly,
endless wars, not creating new ones.
But whatever you believe, have the courage of your conviction, have
the courage to vote, and that is what the underlying War Powers
Resolution is all about. Congress needs to authorize any additional
hostilities with Iran.
Madam Speaker, these decisions aren't easy. I understand that. There
is no more consequential vote than deciding whether to send men and
women off to war and into harm's way. We weigh that decision knowing
that, despite our hopes and prayers, lives are lost in combat.
{time} 1245
Mothers and fathers could lose their children. Kids could be forced
to grow up without a parent.
But when we were sworn in, each of us took an oath to defend the
Constitution, and that means wrestling with this very tough decision
when necessary. The only question now is whether we have the guts to
uphold that oath.
Madam Speaker, with the Middle East held captive to the whims of a
reckless President, and with the Commander in Chief without a clue, I
pray that we, in Congress, have that courage.
On behalf of our troops, their families, and the American people, I
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Today, we consider H. Con. Res. 83 or, technically, we are
considering the rule to consider H. Con. Res. 83, a resolution to
remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran.
But the thing is, we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran. Once
again, we are considering a measure that will have no force of law.
This is a nonbinding concurrent resolution.
There was some debate in the Rules Committee last night on whether a
concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution is, in fact,
nonbinding. But in the Senate, a joint resolution has been introduced,
making it likely that this House Concurrent Resolution will go no
further than the action today.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The
Constitution also designates the President as the Commander in Chief of
the Armed Forces. This sets up a conflict. The courts have not
delineated the boundaries of these authorities or determined gaps
between them that would either deny power to a President or to the
Congress, one at the expense of the other.
In Federalist Number 69, Alexander Hamilton argued the President's
power resides only in the direction of the military as placed by law at
his command. Presidents have long argued that their role as Commander
in Chief, coupled with their inherent authority over foreign affairs,
grants them the power to engage the Armed Forces, short of war, as they
see fit.
Since the founding of our country, the Supreme Court has ruled both
that the President enjoys greater discretion when acting with respect
to matters of foreign affairs and, that absent an authorization of
action during wartime, any action by the President was void.
Despite the struggle to maintain the separation of powers with regard
to engaging our Armed Forces, the motivation underlying the inclusion
in the Constitution of these powers for both the President and the
Congress continues to this day: The desire to protect and defend the
United States, its persons, and its assets.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, largely in
response to the experiences in Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers
Resolution authorizes the engagement of the forces of the United States
in hostilities when: There is a declaration of war; or there exists a
specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
Armed Forces.
To assess the current situation, let's examine what has led us to
this point.
In June of 2019, Iran shot down a surveillance aircraft that was
flying over international waters near the Strait of Hormuz. This was an
unmanned aerial drone.
At the time, President Trump was advised by his military advisers to
strike back, but the President opted not to strike back because it
would have resulted in Iranian casualties, and he felt he could not
justify creation of human casualties because of the loss of a machine.
I agree with the President in that decision. I think his restraint was
remarkable, but, certainly, exemplary.
In September of 2019, Iranian cruise missiles struck nearly 20
targets of critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. This
disrupted a significant portion of Saudi oil production.
In December of 2019, Iranian-backed forces in Iraq targeted military
facilities where United States forces were co-located.
On December 27, an Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, a U.S.-designated
foreign terrorist organization, attacked a base in northern Iraq, and
they killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four U.S. servicemembers.
The United States responded, and it launched a retaliatory air strike
in Iraq and Syria.
On January 2, 2020, acting on intelligence of imminent threat to
American interests, and in response to the persistent attack by
Iranian-backed entities, the United States military killed General
Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was the long-time leader of the Iran
Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
The Iran Revolutionary Guard is a U.S.-designated terrorist
organization. It has been supporting proxy forces throughout the Middle
East and attacking United States interests and allies for over a
decade.
Soleimani previously operated under strict security but, in recent
years, he has moved much more freely and openly, believing that the
United States did not have the willpower to be able to attack him. His
atrocities include the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the
attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat in the United States, among
other things.
President Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary
Jeh Johnson, stated that General Soleimani was a legitimate military
target.
I do want to be clear. The last thing that I want to see and I
suspect anyone in this body wants to see is our men and women committed
to another conflict in the Middle East. We want those conflicts to end,
as does the President.
But, Madam Speaker, today the world is a safer place without General
Soleimani. And who would want him to come back?
Despite the disagreement in how further to engage in the Middle East,
in the country of Iran, be it militarily or diplomatically, the last
thing we should be doing is broadcasting our plans to the enemy.
By passing this War Powers Resolution, directing the President to
remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, a point
that is, in itself in contention, we are effectively telling the
Iranian mullahs that it is okay to push forward with their aggressive
posturing. Rather than stating what the President cannot do, perhaps we
should be authorizing what the President can do.
Last night, in the Rules Committee, it became clear that both
Republicans and Democrats agree that the world is a safer place without
General Soleimani, and any war with Iran needs to be authorized by
Congress seemed to be general agreement.
Democrats want to maintain the separation of powers, as do I, but the
question is, to what extent are we jeopardizing our safety?
I believe Congress does need to authorize military action and
maintain the separation of powers as intended by the Founders, but we
don't need to broadcast it to the world.
While we may be divided on the need for this resolution, let us
recognize the privilege that we enjoy each and every day, being able to
stand in this House and debate these issues without fear of
[[Page H80]]
retribution of our government. Those protesters in Iran did not enjoy
that freedom. They cut off the internet and eliminated those
protesters. That is why you don't see them anymore.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just respond to the gentleman when he says that this is a
concurrent resolution here in the House and it is nonbinding and merely
symbolic. Let me point out to him that the law states clearly that this
sort of resolution reins in the President. The War Powers Resolution
requires the President to stop using American forces and hostilities if
Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
Moreover, the Constitution gives war powers to the Congress, not to
the President. And if both Houses pass this resolution, it is a clear
statement that Congress is denying the President the authority to wage
war, and that the President must come to Congress for an authorization
prior to further hostilities.
And by the way, we are not just pursuing a concurrent resolution.
Senator Kaine of Virginia, over in the Senate, is pursuing a joint
resolution; so we are covering all bases here because we are deeply
concerned that we may end up in a war inadvertently here, and that
Congress will have no role in it.
Again, I would urge the gentleman to read the War Powers Resolution.
I have a copy here, and the accompanying report when this resolution
was signed into law. The report, with regard to consultation, is
crystal clear that consultation is meant prior to introducing our
forces and engaging into hostilities, which is something the President
didn't even notify us of.
And in terms of the President's exercising this remarkable restraint,
I just have a very different opinion. Have you read his Twitter
account? Have you been listening to him on TV as he brags about the
shiny, expensive weapons we have that he would love to use? The
rhetoric, the threat to bomb cultural sites, which is a war crime? I
mean, the gentleman may be totally at ease with all of that, but I am
not; and most of the American people are scared as hell of this
President's rhetoric when it comes to a potential war with Iran.
All we are saying here is that we ought to stand up for this
institution, and stand with the Constitution, and make it very clear
that if the President wants to go to war in Iran, that he needs to come
to Congress to get that declaration, to get that authorization.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Shalala), a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the War
Powers Resolution to limit the President's military actions regarding
Iran.
As a Member of Congress, one of our most sacred votes is our vote to
declare war. We, therefore, have an obligation to study the evidence
and share concerns about the administration's decision to engage in
hostilities against Iran. We have a duty to question its strategy, or
lack of strategy, moving forward.
My expertise, Madam Speaker, is not foreign policy, but I know Iran.
I lived there. I worked there as a Peace Corps volunteer many years
ago. I have been a student of Iranian history and politics for more
than 3 decades.
There is no question about Iran's role in sponsoring terrorism.
Soleimani himself was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
Americans and thousands around the world. He actively worked to foment
instability across the Middle East on behalf of the government of Iran.
Nevertheless, the President of the United States, in his response to
Iran, announced that he would commit a war crime by targeting Iran's
extraordinary cultural sites. War crimes. No matter who is President of
the United States, when he or she indicates that they are prepared to
commit a war crime, then Congress better step up and reassert its
authority under the Constitution.
We must demand that the President justify any act, and that is what
this resolution does. That is why I support it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for the
purpose of response before I yield to Mr. Cole.
And my response would be, had the gentleman from Massachusetts
yielded to me for a question, my question was going to be, was he
asking for unanimous consent to change the concurrent resolution to a
joint resolution such that it could align and harmonize with the Senate
activity and then, therefore, maybe accomplish something. But he
didn't.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Dr. Burgess,
for yielding.
I rise, Madam Speaker, in reluctant opposition, quite frankly, to
both the rule and the underlying legislation.
As my good friend, Chairman McGovern knows, we have actually worked
together to try and expand and reclaim war-making authority for the
Congress of the United States, and I would offer and continue to work
with him in that partnership. I think that is something that needs to
be continued.
I also think we have no difference that if we were to engage in a war
with Iraq, it would require congressional authorization. And frankly,
last night, in the Rules Committee, I offered a process whereby we
could work together in a bipartisan fashion; that is, let's just follow
the War Powers Resolution. Let's submit something to the committee of
jurisdiction, which is actually the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have
a deadline or a timeline laid out in the War Powers Act; they could
operate within that. Within a matter of a few weeks we would then, in a
very bipartisan manner, bring something to the floor.
Let's contrast that with how this particular resolution came to the
floor. We got it about 45 minutes before the Rules Committee meeting.
It is written in the Speaker's Office; rewritten in the Speaker's
Office, and it is sent down here to make a political point, not to
actually do something that would substantively restore congressional
war-making power. This is all politics; that is all it is.
{time} 1300
The political aim here is for our friends to suggest that the
President either wants war with Iran or has acted hastily,
precipitously, and recklessly. Neither of those things is true.
Frankly, our latest dispute with Iran begins with the decision by
this administration appropriately to withdraw from the very ill-advised
Iranian nuclear deal, a deal, by the way, that the majority of this
House and the majority of the United States Senate opposed, but
President Obama went ahead with it anyway.
What has been the Iranian response to our withdrawal? A series of
provocations to which, as my good friend Mr. Burgess pointed out, the
President, by and large, has acted with remarkable restraint. Let's
just go through some of those provocations.
First, it was attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in the gulf.
What was the President's response? Well, let's organize an
international flotilla to defend these ships. He did not attack Iran.
Next, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, we see strikes into
Iraq itself. Particularly, we see an attack on Saudi Arabian oil
refineries. What is the President's response? Well, let's not attack
Iran. Let's send defensive capabilities from our country there and
protect those sites.
Then, we see attacks on American forces in Iraq. What is the
President's response? As my friend pointed out, let's go after the Shia
militias. Let's not attack Iran.
Finally, after that, when the President responds, we see another
attack. In that attack, as my friend pointed out, an American
contractor died, and four American servicemembers were wounded. Again,
the President responds by attacking Shia militia.
Then, the next response, our embassy is assaulted. Thank goodness, no
loss of life, but I think the President had had enough.
By the way, just after that assault happens, who magically shows up
in violation of a U.N. resolution in Iraq? Our good friend General
Soleimani, a designated terrorist for 13 years, a person who has killed
hundreds of Americans, wounded thousands more, not to
[[Page H81]]
mention the tens of thousands across the region. What does the
President do? The President takes out a legitimate terrorist target. In
Iran? No, the President doesn't want to do that. He does it in Iraq.
Now, how anybody could have any doubt about the President's desire
to, number one, strike at a terrorist, and, number two, avoid war, I
will never know.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, passing this resolution, as my good friend
Dr. Burgess suggested, sends the wrong message to the wrong people at
precisely the wrong time.
The President did the right thing here. He has acted in a restrained
manner. He has endured, and our country has endured, endless
provocations.
We should reject this rule. Frankly, we should have a regular process
where we actually go back to the committee of jurisdiction. We should
absolutely reject the underlying resolution.
Before I conclude, I want to mention I know my friend is very sincere
in his opinions on expanding congressional war power. There is no doubt
in my mind about it. We have worked on that before. I look forward to
working with my friend on that issue again. This is the wrong vehicle,
the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong consequences for our own
country to pass this kind of legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from
Oklahoma that I look forward to working with him on the war powers and
other issues related to the executive branch encroaching on legislative
powers in the future. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way and make
some progress here.
I include in the Record a January 4 New York Times article entitled
``As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme
Measure.''
[From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 2020]
As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme Measure
(By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman and Rukmini
Callimachi)
Washington.--In the chaotic days leading to the death of
Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful commander,
top American military officials put the option of killing
him--which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent
Iranian-led violence in Iraq--on the menu they presented to
President Trump.
They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often
offered improbable options to presidents to make other
possibilities appear more palatable.
After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28
and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shiite
militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched,
fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks
on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense
Department and administration officials.
By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme
option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
Mr. Trump made the decision, senior officials said on
Saturday, despite disputes in the administration about the
significance of what some officials said was a new stream of
intelligence that warned of threats to American embassies,
consulates and military personnel in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
General Suleimani had just completed a tour of his forces in
Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and was planning an ``imminent''
attack that could claim hundreds of lives, those officials
said.
``Days, weeks,'' Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Friday, when asked how
imminent any attacks could be, without offering more detail
other than to say that new information about unspecified
plotting was ``clear and unambiguous.''
But some officials voiced private skepticism about the
rationale for a strike on General Suleimani, who was
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops
over the years. According to one United States official, the
new intelligence indicated ``a normal Monday in the Middle
East''--Dec. 30--and General Suleimani's travels amounted to
``business as usual.''
That official described the intelligence as thin and said
that General Suleimani's attack was not imminent because of
communications the United States had between Iran's supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and General Suleimani showing
that the ayatollah had not yet approved any plans by the
general for an attack. The ayatollah, according to the
communications, had asked General Suleimani to come to Tehran
for further discussions at least a week before his death.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike
Pence were two of the most hawkish voices arguing for a
response to Iranian aggression, according to administration
officials. Mr. Pence's office helped run herd on meetings and
conference calls held by officials in the run-up to the
strike.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and General Milley declined
to comment for this article, but General Milley's
spokeswoman, Col. DeDe Halfhill, said, without elaborating,
that ``some of the characterizations being asserted by other
sources are false'' and that she would not discuss
conversations between General Milley and the president.
The fallout from Mr. Trump's targeted killing is now
underway. On Saturday in Iraq, the American military was on
alert as tens of thousands of pro-Iranian fighters marched
through the streets of Baghdad and calls accelerated to eject
the United States from the country. United States Central
Command, which oversees American military operations in the
Middle East, said there were two rocket attacks near Iraqi
bases that host American troops, but no one was injured.
In Iran, the ayatollah vowed ``forceful revenge'' as the
country mourned the death of General Suleimani.
In Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump lashed back, promising to
strike 52 sites across Iran--representing the number of
American hostages taken by Iran in 1979--if Iran attacked
Americans or American interests. On Saturday night, Mr. Trump
warned on Twitter that some sites were ``at a very high level
& important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets,
and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.''
The president issued those warnings after American spy
agencies on Saturday detected that Iranian ballistic missile
units across the country had gone to a heightened state of
readiness, a United States official said on Saturday night.
Other officials said it was unclear whether Iran was
dispersing its ballistic missile units--the heart of the
Iranian military--to avoid American attack, or was mobilizing
the units for a major strike against American targets or
allies in the region in retaliation for General Suleimani' s
death.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats voiced growing suspicions about
the intelligence that led to the killing. At the White House,
officials formally notified Congress of a war powers
resolution with what the administration said was a legal
justification for the strike.
At Fort Bragg, N.C., some 3,500 soldiers, one of the
largest rapid deployments in decades, are bound for the
Middle East.
General Suleimani, who was considered the most important
person in Iran after Ayatollah Khamenei, was a commanding
general of a sovereign government. The last time the United
States killed a major military leader in a foreign country
was during World War II, when the American military shot down
the plane carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.
But administration officials are playing down General
Suleimani's status as a part of the Iranian state, suggesting
his title gave him cover for terrorist activities. In the
days since his death, they have sought to describe the strike
as more in line with the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the
Islamic State leader, who died in October in an American
commando raid in Syria.
Administration officials insisted they did not anticipate
sweeping retaliation from Iran, in part because of divisions
in the Iranian leadership. But Mr. Trump's two predecessors--
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama--had rejected
killing General Suleimani as too provocative.
General Suleimani had been in Mr. Trump's sights since the
beginning of the administration, although it was a Dec. 27
rocket attack on an Iraqi military base outside Kirkuk, which
left an American civilian contractor dead, that set the
killing in motion.
General Milley and Mr. Esper traveled on Sunday to Mar-a-
Lago, Mr. Trump's Palm Beach resort, a day after officials
presented the president with an initial list of options for
how to deal with escalating violence against American targets
in Iraq.
The options included strikes on Iranian ships or missile
facilities or against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq.
The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General
Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable.
Mr. Trump chose strikes against militia groups. On Sunday,
the Pentagon announced that airstrikes approved by the
president had struck three locations in Iraq and two in Syria
controlled by the group, Kataib Hezbollah.
Jonathan Hoffman, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said the
targets included weapons storage facilities and command posts
used to attack American and partner forces. About two dozen
militia fighters were killed.
``These were on remote sites,'' General Milley told
reporters on Friday in his Pentagon office. ``There was no
collateral damage.''
But the Iranians viewed the strikes as out of proportion to
their attack on the Iraqi base and Iraqis, largely member's
of Iranian-backed militias, staged violent protests outside
the American Embassy in Baghdad. Mr. Trump, who aides said
had on his mind the specter of the 2012 attacks on the
American compound in Benghazi, Libya, became increasingly
angry as he watched television images of pro-Iranian
demonstrators storming the embassy. Aides said he worried
that no response would look weak after repeated threats by
the United States.
When Mr. Trump chose the option of killing General
Suleimani, top military officials, flabbergasted, were
immediately
[[Page H82]]
alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on
American troops in the region. It is unclear if General
Milley or Mr. Esper pushed back on the president's decision.
Over the next several days, the military's Special
Operations Command looked for an opportunity to hit General
Suleimani, who operated in the open and was treated like a
celebrity in many places he visited in the Middle East.
Military and intelligence officials said the strike drew on
information from secret informants, electronic intercepts,
reconnaissance aircraft and other surveillance tools.
The option that was eventually approved depended on who
would greet General Suleimani at his expected arrival on
Friday at Baghdad International Airport. If he was met by
Iraqi government officials allied with Americans, one
American official said, the strike would be called off. But
the official said it was a ``clean party,'' meaning members
of Kataib Hezbollah, including its leader, Abu Mahdi al-
Muhandis. Mr. Trump authorized the killing at about 5 p.m. on
Thursday, officials said.
On Friday, missiles fired from an American MQ-9 Reaper blew
up General Suleimani's convoy as it departed the airport.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Morelle), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair and my
colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me this
minute.
We begin the new year in turbulent and uncertain times, particularly
with regard to Iran and the Middle East. Protecting our national
interests and securing the safety and security of the American people
must be the highest priorities of our government. I am gravely
concerned the recent actions of the Trump administration have
destabilized the region and undermined those priorities.
Article I of the United States Constitution vests in the House and
Senate the responsibility to declare war, to appropriate money for the
national defense, and, in doing so, to ensure no President employs
military action without careful consultation of and authorization by
Congress.
That is why it is so important that we take action to reaffirm these
responsibilities by passing the resolution before us, which I am proud
to cosponsor.
The use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities
against Iran must come only after thoughtful deliberation and approval
by Congress. As we move forward, we must all seek to achieve a peaceful
resolution that protects American interests at home and abroad.
I join with all Americans in praying for the safety of our courageous
servicemembers and urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a valuable member of the House Committee on
Rules.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, I thank President Trump for making a decisive action to
protect Americans. Thank you.
The world now knows that Obama's appeasement strategy policies,
including giving billions of dollars to Iran, are over. It didn't work.
The world knows that when President Trump says we are not going to
cross this red line, they know he means it.
In Rules Committee last night and again today, I listened as my
Democratic colleagues claim what this resolution is all about. They
claim that it is about making sure Congress exerts its authority to
approve future war against Iran. But that is not what this resolution
does.
In fact, let's read the title of this resolution. It says:
``Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage
in hostilities in or against Iran.'' It doesn't say anything about
future war.
We do not currently have U.S. Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in
or against Iran. If Democrats are serious about making sure Congress
has its say in declaring war, they would follow the statutory
guidelines as described by Representative Cole. They are already in
there. Go to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Instead, Democrats have chosen to short circuit the process yet again
to achieve a partisan objective.
As a member of the Rules Committee, I saw the language of the
resolution 45 minutes before the Rules Committee started. This is not a
serious effort for such a serious subject.
Here are the facts. Iran and Iranian-backed militias have escalated
their attacks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, in June 2019, Iran shot down a U.S. drone.
Trump said, no, we are not going to retaliate because no U.S. lives
were lost. Iran attacked Saudi oil fields. Iran-backed militia killed a
U.S. citizen and wounded four troops. Then, an Iran-backed militia
attacked the U.S. Embassy.
Soleimani was a terrorist designated by the Obama administration.
Let me read very quickly what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said. He
has had 40 years of military experience under all different
administrations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. General Milley said the trigger for the drone strike that
killed Soleimani was ``clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days,
weeks, and months,'' and that the administration would have been
``culpably negligent'' if it did not act.
This is a man who has been in the military for 40 years under
different administrations, and you are going to doubt what he has to
say?
I thank President Trump for protecting American citizens.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a January 8
Vanity Fair article entitled ``There Is No Strategy: Diplomats React to
Trump's Erratic, Narcissistic Iran Policy.''
[From Vanity Fair, Jan. 8, 2020]
``There Is No Strategy'': Diplomats React to Trump's Erratic,
Narcissistic Iran Policy
(By Abigail Tracy)
After the American drone strike and Iran's measured
retaliation, some State vets worry that Trump is a wild card,
the biggest danger: ``From a political standpoint,'' says
one, ``they have behaved a hell of a lot more rationally and
predictably than we have.''
In the aftermath of Iran's strike against two airbases, in
retaliation for the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani
last week, a sigh of relief was breathed, but for what? That
there had been no casualties from Iran's cruise missiles was
a huge reason to be thankful. (U.S. officials have since
suggested this was intentional.) But there was also a sense
of relief that Trump had stepped back--as if he were the wild
card. The developments laid bare what diplomats I spoke with
identified as a discomforting reality in the Trump era. ``Up
is down and down is up,'' a former U.S. ambassador in the
region told me, noting Iran's decision to notify the Iraqis
ahead of the attack on Tuesday and Mohammad Javad Zarif's
message of detente in the face of Trump's bluster. ``Who
would've imagined that it's the American president who is a
crazy person gunning for war and the mullahs who are being
careful and deliberate and cautious . . . . They have done
terrible things--I am not going to defend the fact that the
country holds hostages and has absolutely supported terrorist
groups and those sorts of things--but from a political
standpoint, they have behaved a hell of a lot more rationally
and predictably than we have,'' this person added. ``Do you
take comfort in the fact that Iran is the rational actor or
does that scare the bejesus out of you even more?''
A former Foreign Service Officer who worked on Iran under
Barack Obama echoed the point. ``I think it is interesting
that [Iran has taken] every opportunity to show that they're
actually more responsible than the U.S. president in
executing this conflict,'' this person said. ``It boggles the
mind to me that we are almost more concerned, I think, about
our own president than we are about the way others may
retaliate, which is really scary.''
Diplomats I spoke with are clear-eyed in their belief that
Iran's retaliation for Soleimani is not complete; they are
bracing for--if not further military attacks--subsequent
responses, such as cyberattacks or even kidnappings. To a
fault, they, too, are not defending Iran's past malfeasance.
And Trump's position on the wake of the attacks is welcomed
by veterans of Foggy Bottom.
[[Page H83]]
``President Trump made the right decision not to respond to
Iran's missile attacks. There were no American casualties and
the Iranians are clearly signaling they don't want a war,''
Nicholas Burns, the former ambassador to NATO, told me. The
problem is that Trump has thus far failed to chart a path
forward with Iran. Instead, he has shuttled between slamming
Iran, slighting his predecessor's signature Iran nuclear
deal, and patting himself on the back for the death of
Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the former leader of the
Islamic State whom the United States killed in October. ``His
speech was confusing about his strategy. It is not at all
clear if he intends to contain Iran through deterrence or to
weaken its government and seek regime change,'' Burns added.
``He owes the American public, the Congress, and our allies a
much more specific and consistent game plan. Otherwise, it
will be difficult for him to gain domestic and allied
support.''
As I reported in the aftermath of the Soleimani's killing
last week, a chief concern within the diplomatic ranks was
that the Trump administration, still lacking a coherent
foreign policy, had failed to adequately contemplate and
prepare for the international and Iranian response to the
airstrike against the top Iranian general. Indeed, the Trump
administration certainly appeared to be caught flat-footed
when the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the
country over the weekend. While asserting that the killing of
Soleimani left Americans safer, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have yet to detail
the imminent threat they claim the Iranian general posed to
U.S. interests. And Trump's remarks on Wednesday arguably
raised more questions than they answered. As the former
ambassador in the region put it, ``There is no strategy. It
is satisfying Trump's ego at every step. It's all it is for
us, there is zero strategy and it's all strategy on Iran's
side.''
Beyond his ``America First'' tagline, Trump has failed to
formulate anything resembling a coherent foreign policy.
Rather, he has a domestic policy that influences American
posturing abroad. The clearest through line in Trump's
various foreign policy decisions can largely be summed up as
``the opposite of what Obama did.'' But this lack of
coherence is particularly troubling in the Middle East and is
amplified by the reality that he's surrounded by hawks with
hard-ons for toppling the Iranian regime, like Pompeo. ``The
most frustrating thing is that this is entirely of his own
making. You think about where we were less than five years
ago, when we got to the deal. Things certainly weren't
perfect by any means. They were still causing a lot of harm
and doing things against our interests in the region, but
compare that to where we are today and it is so entirely
avoidable,'' the former Foreign Service officer told me.
``The lack of a strategy continues to be the most dangerous
thing we can do in the Middle East.''
A former high-ranking State Department official expressed
similar dismay. ``Foreign policy isn't well-done on impulse.
Because so much is intertwined . . . . It requires the
ability to understand the trade-offs and possible longer-term
impacts. Never easy. But this team has no ability to do
that,'' they told me. ``If I were a military family member,
I'd really worry that our troops are being sent out with no
clear plan or mission. Not a comforting thought.''
If Trump really does have an appetite for diplomacy, that's
undeniably a positive development. Diplomats stress that now
is the time for it, and the Iranians do seem to be signaling
a desire deescalate. ``Now we're in the time of intense
diplomacy, where around the world leaders are figuring out,
`If you do this, I do that' and 'What will be the response of
X if we do Y,' '' a former senior U.S. official told me. But,
this person added, ``The only ones not taking part are the
Americans.'' Instead, ``America is content with a two-
dimensional policy: We take this act, we stand still and
watch what happens. The other countries are at least trying
to be three-dimensional, adding the element of time,
projecting to the not-too-distant future which advantages are
to be gained.''
In an ideal world, Burns said, Trump would open a reliable
diplomatic channel to Tehran. ``We should want to be able to
deliver tough and clear messages to its government. And it
would be smart to offer Iran a diplomatic off-ramp so that we
can end the possibility of a wider war that is in neither of
our interests,'' he said. ``Trump's disinterest in real
diplomacy is a significant disadvantage for the U.S.''
Confronting a president who has repeatedly demonstrated a
desire to dive into military conflict before diplomacy,
Congress is grappling with how to restrain Trump. California
congressman Ro Khanna told me the attacks on Tuesday increase
``the urgency for Congress to act. We need to engage in de-
escalation and a cease-fire to end the cycle of violence.''
Currently on the table are a few measures House Democrats
hope can curb Trump's authority to attack Iran. Among them
are a War Powers Resolution and a bill drafted by Khanna and
Senator Bernie Sanders that would defund any offensive action
in Iran and require any such action to have Congressional
authorization.
Khanna told me that the Democratic caucus is unified and
that he has been in talks with Speaker Nancy Pelosi about
timing and process. The House is expected to vote on a War
Powers Resolution, after which they would push his bill with
Senator Sanders. Currently, House leadership is figuring how
to craft a War Powers Resolution in a way that would prevent
Republicans from attaching a Motion to Recommit, which could
prevent it from reaching the Senate floor--as was the case
with the War Powers Resolution on Yemen. ``That is why it is
taking some time,'' Khanna explained. ``It is taking time to
figure out the procedural mechanisms with the parliamentarian
in the House and the Senate so that what we send over to the
Senate doesn't lose its War Powers privileged status. If it
loses its privileged status, then [Mitch] McConnell would
never call it up.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to respond to the gentlewoman. I urge the gentlewoman, who read
a couple of lines from the resolution, as I urge all of my colleagues,
to read the entire resolution.
This is pretty simple. Basically, it says that if we go to war with
Iran, Congress ought to have a say in it. Congress ought to do what the
Constitution requires us to do.
I don't know why that is a radical idea, but if my friends want to go
to war with Iran, they have to have the guts to come to the floor to
debate it and vote on it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, the President cannot unilaterally go
to war with Iran, nor are we safer since January 2, 2020, after having
targeted and killed the second-in-command of Iran. The American people,
as well as our troops, are in more jeopardy.
In 2002, I was here, and I offer these words from my statement on the
floor regarding President Bush. ``Always a question of the greatest
importance, our decision today,'' in 2002, ``is further weighted by the
fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine
that gives a President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive
first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic
options.''
I further went on to say that ``our own intelligence agencies report
that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack
from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories.''
Proven right, endless war, continuous loss of life of our treasured
young men and women and many injured--this resolution and rule are
imperative to assert constitutional authority to ensure the protection
of the American people.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), a valuable member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I join my colleagues in expressing the will to have an honest debate
of the War Powers Act, should the majority party choose to do so.
Before I move any further, I submit for the Record a report from the
Director of National Intelligence on Barack Obama's use of drones, an
average of 67 drone strikes a year over his first 7 years in office,
killing an average of six enemy combatants a week, wherein the majority
said absolutely nothing about it at the time.
Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside
Areas of Active Hostilities
In accordance with the President's direction and consistent
with the President's commitment to providing as much
information as possible to the American people about U.S.
counterterrorism activities, the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) is releasing today a summary of
information provided to the DNI about both the number of
strikes taken by the U.S. Government against terrorist
targets outside areas of active hostilities and the assessed
number of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from
those strikes. ``Areas of active hostilities'' currently
include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
Summary of U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active
Hostilities between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015
Total number of strikes against terrorist targets outside
areas of active hostilities: 473.
Combatant deaths: 2372-2581.
Non-combatant deaths: 64-116.
The assessed range of non-combatant deaths provided to the
DNI reflects consideration of credible reports of non-
combatant deaths drawn from all-source information, including
reports from the media and non-
[[Page H84]]
governmental organizations. The assessed range of non-
combatant deaths includes deaths for which there is an
insufficient basis for assessing that the deceased is a
combatant.
U.S. Government Post-Strike Review Processes and Procedures
The information that was provided to the DNI regarding
combatant and non-combatant deaths is the result of processes
that include careful reviews of all strikes after they are
conducted to assess the effectiveness of operations. These
review processes have evolved over time to ensure that they
incorporate the best available all-source intelligence, media
reporting, and other information and may result in
reassessments of strikes if new information becomes available
that alters the original judgment. The large volume of pre-
and post-strike data available to the U.S. Government can
enable analysts to distinguish combatants from non-
combatants, conduct detailed battle damage assessments, and
separate reliable reporting from terrorist propaganda or from
media reports that may be based on inaccurate information.
Discrepancies Between U.S. Government and Non-Governmental Assessments
In releasing these figures, the U.S. Government
acknowledges that there are differences between U.S.
Government assessments and reporting from non-governmental
organizations. Reports from non-governmental organizations
can include both aggregate data regarding non-combatant
deaths as well as case studies addressing particular strikes,
and generally rely on a combination of media reporting and,
in some instances, field research conducted in areas of
reported strikes. Although these organizations' reports of
non-combatant deaths resulting from U.S. strikes against
terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities vary
widely, such reporting generally estimates significantly
higher figures for non-combatant deaths than is indicated by
U.S. Government information. For instance, for the period
between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015, non-
governmental organizations' estimates range from more than
200 to slightly more than 900 possible non-combatant deaths
outside areas of active hostilities.
Consistent with the requirements applicable to future
reporting under Section 3(b) of the Executive Order ``United
States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address
Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of
Force,'' the information we are releasing today addresses
general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike
assessments from the United States Government and credible
reporting from non-governmental organizations regarding non-
combatant deaths and does not address specific incidents.
There are a number of possible reasons that these non-
governmental organizations' reports of the number of
noncombatants killed may differ from the U.S. Government
assessments, based on the information provided to the DNI.
First, although there are inherent limitations on
determining the precise number of combatant and non-combatant
deaths, particularly when operating in non-permissive
environments, the U.S. Government uses post-strike
methodologies that have been refined and honed over the years
and that use information that is generally unavailable to
non-governmental organizations. The U.S. Government draws on
all available information (including sensitive intelligence)
to determine whether an individual is part of a belligerent
party fighting against the United States in an armed
conflict, taking a direct part in hostilities against the
United States, or otherwise targetable in the exercise of
national self-defense. Thus, the U.S. Government may have
reliable information that certain individuals are combatants,
but are being counted as non-combatants by nongovernmental
organizations. For example, further analysis of an
individual's possible membership in an organized armed group
may include, among other things: the extent to which an
individual performs functions for the benefit of the group
that are analogous to those traditionally performed by
members of a country's armed forces; whether that person is
carrying out or giving orders to others within the group; or
whether that person has undertaken certain acts that reliably
connote meaningful integration into the group.
Second, according to information provided to the DNI, U.S.
Government post-strike reviews involve the collection and
analysis of multiple sources of intelligence before, during,
and after a strike, including video observations, human
sources and assets, signals intelligence, geospatial
intelligence, accounts from local officials on the ground,
and open source reporting. Information collected before a
strike is intended to provide clarity regarding the number of
individuals at a strike location as well as whether the
individuals are engaged in terrorist activity. Post-strike
collection frequently enables U.S. Government analysts to
confirm, among other things, the number of individuals killed
as well as their combatant status. The information is then
analyzed along with other all-source intelligence reporting.
This combination of sources is unique and can provide
insights that are likely unavailable to non-governmental
organizations.
Finally, non-governmental organizations' reports of
counterterrorism strikes attributed to the U.S. Government--
particularly their identification of non-combatant deaths--
may be further complicated by the deliberate spread of
misinformation by some actors, including terrorist
organizations, in local media reports on which some non-
governmental estimates rely.
Although the U.S. Government has access to a wide range of
information, the figures released today should be considered
in light of the inherent limitations on the ability to
determine the precise number of combatant and non-combatant
deaths given the non-permissive environments in which these
strikes often occur. The U.S. Government remains committed to
considering new, credible information regarding non-combatant
deaths that may emerge and revising previous assessments, as
appropriate.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, if we want to have an
honest debate about the War Powers Act, then let's have an honest
debate about the War Powers Act.
Why didn't we hear anything from our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle about Libya when President Barack Obama took action that led
to the death of Muammar Qadhafi? Why not Syria? Why not Yemen? Why is
Iran individually spelled out in this resolution?
The only reason Iran is singled out in this resolution is to take a
political jab at President Trump for utilizing an airstrike to take out
General Soleimani, a terrorist who was responsible for killing
thousands of Americans, partner troops, and, yes, Iranians.
While our colleagues are upset with the use of airstrikes to kill
General Soleimani, I remind them that the Obama administration,
according to their own Director of National Intelligence, conducted
hundreds of airstrikes, averaging more than six kills a week between
January 2009 and December 2015, and that was in areas of
nonhostilities. That doesn't even include Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria,
which are classified numbers.
Let's just be honest about what this is. This is another partisan
attack against the President of the United States for killing General
Soleimani, who was a terrorist in an area where the President had the
absolute legal authority to operate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to respond to the gentleman from Georgia, who I have a great
deal of respect for.
Let's be honest here. Many of us, contrary to what the gentleman just
said, have been outspoken against unilateral interventions by the
executive branch without notifying Congress, without seeking our
approval on military authorization under Obama. I, for one, was
critical of his drone attacks. I raised issues about our involvement in
Syria.
I include in the Record a statement that I made, saying that Congress
should reconvene and debate and vote on a resolution with regard to
what the Obama administration was doing in Libya.
[Press Release, March 23, 2011]
Congressman McGovern Statement on Libya
Washington, DC.--For several weeks now I have been calling
for an internationally-enforced no-fly-zone over Libya in
order to prevent Colonel Qadaffi from slaughtering his own
people. I agree with President Obama that U.S. ground troops
should not be committed to this effort, and that our
international partners should soon take the lead. Whether or
not Qadaffi remains the leader of Libya must, in the end, be
up to the Libyan people. I am troubled about pressure to
expand the military operation and the many unanswered
questions about Libyan opposition forces. I urge the House
leadership to call the Congress back into session as soon as
possible so that Congress can exercise its constitutional
responsibility to clearly spell out the mission and limits of
U.S. military engagement in Libya. And I urge the Obama
Administration to consult with Congress and to engage us at
every possible opportunity as this crisis continues to
unfold.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, some of us have been consistent on this
through Democratic and Republican administrations. I take great
exception when anybody tries to say that we are raising this issue just
purely for political purposes.
For me, it is not. For me, I have been consistent on this through
Democratic and Republican administrations.
{time} 1315
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from
Massachusetts setting the record straight. The war powers activity, the
authorization
[[Page H85]]
of military force has been an issue that a number of us have been
concerned with, Republican and Democrat, going back to the Clinton
administration and activity in the Balkans, but what my friend from
Massachusetts pointed out is that this reckless act by the President of
the United States actually makes us less safe.
With one act, he has been able to unite the opposition in Iran.
Remember, they were demonstrating in the streets against the regime.
And I have heard from friends of mine who have deep roots in Iran that
this has probably set back the cause of reform years, if not decades,
in Iran.
We are less safe, not more.
I strongly urge the approval of this resolution as a start to rein in
the President's worst impulses, but we must also put in additional
checks, by passing Representative Khanna's legislation to ensure no
funds are used for an unauthorized war with Iran and Representative
Lee's legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to get
it right. And to take our friend, Mr. Cole's, word, we can move this
forward. I see this as a beginning, and we can build on it, but rein in
this administration.
Send a strong signal. Approve this resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire the amount of time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a valuable member of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is insincere and unserious. It is
insincere because this is just: We don't like the President and he took
action, and we can't stand it.
It is unserious, because if they really wanted to limit the actions
of our government to defend our country and defend those in uniform,
this wouldn't be a nonbinding resolution, they would limit it. If they
want to limit it, go ahead and do it.
For the people in America that say, ``Well, we don't know this
Soleimani guy. How come we don't know him?'' That is a great question.
How come they don't know?
Well, let me introduce folks to him. He got busy with his work as a
terrorist in Beirut, killing 241 marines; the Khobar Towers, killing
Americans; hundreds of American personnel wearing uniforms dead by
EFPs, explosively formed penetrators; and thousands maimed walking
around the United States, walking around the Halls of this Congress.
That is Soleimani.
But they don't know him because this body, the executive branch,
Republicans and Democrats, have sent their young men and women to war
without dealing with this killer, this terrorist, because it was too
hard, too hard in Iraq to deal with Iran, because it might make them
mad, they might do something about it.
Our colleagues say that the President is reckless, without a plan.
Here is what is reckless: appeasement. Appeasement has gotten
Americans killed, has gotten people around the globe killed because of
this guy. What is the point of designating him a terrorist if you are
not going to do anything about it?
Doing the bidding of Iran on this floor is unacceptable. We don't
want to be in a war, that is true, nobody wants to be in a war, but I
have got a news flash for everybody: Iran slapped us in the face in
1979 and they have been fighting with us ever since.
Us saying we are not going to defend ourselves does not stop Iran
from fighting the war that they have with us. Appeasing Iran will only
kill more Americans. It hasn't worked.
That is what is happening here today, Madam Speaker: the defense of
the appeasement strategy of the last administration and administrations
in the past.
We cannot allow this strategy to continue and Americans to be killed
or Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to read
the resolution. This is about the future and it is about whether or
not, if we go to war with Iran, whether or not Congress upholds its
constitutional responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The President's policy towards Iran is to tear up diplomacy and
embrace so-called maximum pressure.
The most recent strike, far from making us safer, is making us more
insecure.
Think about the deliberate consequences from that act:
One, the Iraqi street is demonstrating against the U.S., not against
Iran, as they were before;
Two, the Iranian street is demonstrating with the mullahs against the
U.S. instead of against their own government;
Three, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the United States from
Iraq, jeopardizing our anti-ISIS mission;
Number four, our military has suspended training for anti-ISIS
activities in Iraq because of this strike;
Number five, the Iran nuclear deal that the President tore up that
Iranians complied with, they are now renouncing, so we are closer to a
nuclear Iran than we were before.
All of this has happened when the likelihood of Iran's further
responding is grave.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, the gun is cocked and loaded.
We cannot go to war without Congress being involved in the debate and
the President telling us what his policy is going to be.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide for immediate consideration of H. Res.
783, honoring the members of the military and intelligence community
for carrying out the mission that killed General Soleimani.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend, to explain the resolution.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that we can
immediately consider my resolution to honor the hard work and
dedication of the men and women who made the precision strike on Qasem
Soleimani possible.
This is an interesting crossroads we find ourselves in. After the
successful response by the United States against the escalating
aggression from the world's most active and deadly terrorist, Qasem
Soleimani, our great country has found itself divided and unsure of
itself.
Instead of unity and resolve in the face of a clear and common enemy,
we have division and self-doubt. What is worse, that division has been
sourced from the leadership in this very body.
While legitimate questions were raised--what authority was used, what
was the reasoning, what sort of intelligence backed this decision--
those questions have long been answered clearly and convincingly.
The President has clear authority, a duty in fact, to respond to
attacks against American citizens and U.S. forces. That isn't my
opinion; that is clear from Article II of the Constitution and the War
Powers Resolution.
The case is made even stronger when you consider this occurred
entirely within Iraq, a place where we already have a lawful military
operational footprint.
[[Page H86]]
The reasoning is quite simple as well: We must make clear that the
U.S. will not be attacked indefinitely, that we will respond, and that
response will make you regret ever having hit us in the first place.
The long history of General Soleimani's actions against the United
States throughout the region, and the killing and maiming of thousands
of America's sons and daughters, and indications of his future actions
make this point even stronger.
As to the intelligence, our CIA, our Director of National
Intelligence, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly
told us that this intelligence was some of the best they had ever seen,
and it removed all doubt that Soleimani was planning large scale
imminent attacks.
These questions have been answered over and over and over, and yet my
colleagues pretend not to hear those answers. After all, the mere
thought of agreeing with and supporting our President is repugnant to
them even when it is the right thing to do.
So instead of applauding these actions that restored American
deterrence, delivered justice to hundreds of dead American soldiers and
their families, and severely weakened the terrorist organization IRGC
Quds Force, my colleagues wring their hands and express regret and
disappointment.
Instead of applauding the men and women of our military standing in
harm's way, instead of recognizing the tireless vigilance of our
intelligence community, instead of acknowledging those who have spent
years confronting the Iranian threat network directly, my colleagues in
this Congress seek to undermine them.
I take this personally, since I was one of those servicemembers for
so many years.
This threat is not new to us, though it may be new to those
politicians who have lived comfortably and safely back home, now
casting stones from ivory towers, relying on disingenuous judgments and
false premises to make a false, politically-driven case to the American
people.
So I offer this resolution today in order to right that wrong. I
offer this to demonstrate to the American people and our servicemembers
and members of the intelligence community that this Congress does
indeed stand by the decision to rid the world of America's enemies and
those who seek to do us harm and stands by those who made justice
possible.
This resolution simply states the obvious: that General Soleimani was
head of one of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations in the
world that already committed numerous attacks against the United States
and planned to carry out many more within days.
This resolution rightfully congratulates our men and women who
disrupted this evil chain of attacks, instead of wrongly suggesting to
them that their actions were unauthorized and even immoral.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this
resolution and put to rest once and for all the false implication that
America cannot defend herself when necessary.
Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, late last week, President Trump ordered the
assassination of a high-ranking Iranian official while he was in Iraq.
This action threatens to cascade the United States into an ill-
advised, not authorized war with Iran, and is already setting into
motion a series of disastrous unintended consequences for American
security and interests in the Middle East.
The President trashed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which
Iran was following and that put in place the first real restraints on
Iran's nuclear program. The world and America were safer under the
JCPOA framework, period.
Enter Trump, and now we see Iranian rockets firing, U.S. forces being
pushed out of Iraq, and alliances strained as we all await further
retaliations.
Oh, history is replete with the misery befalling those poor empires
who first fight and mistake that for might.
This escalation with Iran must end, Congress must reassert its war
powers authority, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Committee on Armed Forces.
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Sometimes when I watch the debate, I wonder what happened to the
confident America that I remember; that when a failing country
threatens us, we actually respond with force instead of fear and run
away.
That said, this process argument that we are having is interesting,
but as my colleague said earlier, maybe they forgot something.
So I am going to urge defeat of the previous question, because I
think in this resolution, something major was forgotten, maybe they can
re-craft it, bring it back later, but that is this: I hear my friends
on the other side of the aisle say that Mr. Soleimani was a bad guy and
they are glad he is dead. However--process argument follows--I think
something has been left out of this.
When I was in Iraq in 2008 and 2009, I operated mostly against
terrorist networks of a different nature, but about a quarter of my
operations were against terrorist networks from Mr. Soleimani.
So these attacks against Americans, we talked about the dead
Americans from Iraq, these have been going on for a very long time, and
I was part of the response to that.
One of the most important things we can do, if we are going to have
this process argument, is appreciate the men and women, not just of the
military, but of the intelligence community, of the State Department,
of everywhere that has worked to bring the intelligence to bring this
evil man to justice.
I heard somebody earlier say we should have just captured him. Well,
think of the risk that would have put to our military. So maybe we
should at least appreciate the job that they are willing to do. That is
going to be essential.
I often hear my friends talk about keeping the military safe, as if
that is the end state of the military.
The military's job that they volunteer for every day is to keep the
American people safe, and that is exactly what was done a week ago in
the death of Soleimani.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that we can give them an opportunity and pass this
resolution appreciating the men and women of the intelligence community
and the military. That is the least we can do after this debate on the
floor.
{time} 1330
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I take my duty
to protect and defend our Nation's interests very seriously. The
President's reckless and irresponsible actions toward Iran have
endangered our servicemembers, diplomats, and allies, and they have
worked counter to American security interests. Those include dangerous
decisions to pull out of the successful Iran deal and kill Commander
Soleimani, drastically ratcheting up tensions in the region.
In the context of the administration's failure to demonstrate an
imminent threat to our Nation, there is no authority for such an action
without authorization from Congress. What makes this even more
dangerous is that the President has no clear strategy.
Under the Constitution, President Trump does not have the authority
to unilaterally wage war. That is why, today, I support this rule and
the underlying resolution, which directs the President to end
hostilities with Iran and to keep our troops in America safe.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Waltz).
Mr. WALTZ. Madam Speaker, Qasem Soleimani, as we have discussed, many
of us have discussed here today, was a
[[Page H87]]
terrorist and a terrorist supporter, and hundreds of American troops
were killed because of him. Many of them are scarred for life.
I don't think we can overstate, in this body, how gruesome, how
advanced, how effective the explosive devices that he poured into his
militias were. They were deadly. They were manufactured in Iran. They
were put in place by Iran. They were trained by Iran. They had the
capability to completely penetrate our armored vehicles.
Soleimani worked hand in hand, in addition to this, with Assad in
Syria, a serial human rights abuser, and waged even chemical warfare on
his own people, literally killing tens of thousands. And because of
him, today, hundreds, if not thousands, of families, including Gold
Star families, just this past holiday, couldn't open up presents with
their loved ones. No longer will they celebrate birthdays or holidays
because of this one evil man.
This terrorist, because of his savage actions, I, as a former Green
Beret who operated against these thugs for years, am grateful to the
intelligence officer, as my colleague Mr. Kinzinger just mentioned, to
the members of the military who carried out this mission to prevent
more lives from being lost.
Soleimani was actively planning attacks in the coming weeks, in the
coming days, in the coming months. According to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, these attacks were imminent, they were clear,
and they were a present danger for our troops, to our allies, and to
our interests.
From an oversight perspective, the President had a duty to act; and
I, for one, would be screaming from the rooftops if he had not taken
appropriate action.
So, again, Madam Speaker, I am thankful for his leadership taking
this monster out. Frankly, this should have been done a long, long time
ago, years ago, by multiple previous administrations. It astounds me
that this is up for debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. WALTZ. For those of you saying actions have consequences, let me
remind you that inaction has consequences. Go to Walter Reed or
Arlington, or go visit the American contractor, as though that is some
kind of term, the American that was killed just last week. His name was
Nawres Waleed Hamid. He is from Sacramento. He is from California, and
he was just buried.
I think the answer for most Americans is this was warranted. It
certainly was for me.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and
consider this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the War Powers Resolution simply requires
the President to consult with the Congress and with the American public
before going to war with Iran.
Our constituents held their breath on Tuesday. Thankfully, no lives
were lost in Iran's retaliatory attack, but serious concerns remain
about the rationale and the ramifications.
We do not mourn the loss of Qasem Soleimani. He was responsible for
actions that harmed and killed American personnel and allies, and I
condemn that. But any U.S. military action, especially one that could
spark catastrophic consequences, needs to be carefully considered,
fully justified within the law.
President Trump failed to consult the Congress, failed to secure
specific authorization, failed to cite with specificity the imminent
threat. In a classified briefing for Members of Congress, the
administration would not, could not provide any specifics about what
constituted an imminent threat. They couldn't tell us what the targets
were, nor would they divulge any of the timelines for the attack.
It is unprecedented the level at which this administration is seeking
to obscure the facts from the Congress and the American people. The
rationale is in doubt, the ramifications as well: The U.S. announced it
will suspend our fight against ISIS; Iraq's Prime Minister and the
legislature moved to expel our troops; the Iranian leaders announced
they would no longer abide by the 2015 nuclear deal.
President Trump's actions have dramatically increased the possibility
of war with Iran and Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Today, America
and our allies are less safe as a result of the administration's
actions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Let us reassert the Congress' role to ensure that the
President--any President--is complying with the law and is not
conducting lengthy military actions without congressional approval.
Let us prevent another unnecessary war. Let us vote for this rule and
this resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the
Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the Constitution gave Congress the power
to declare war. The Constitution gave Congress the power appropriate
money for war. The Constitution gave us the power to raise and support
armies and to provide and maintain a Navy.
Why? Why didn't the Framers just give the President the power to
declare and wage war? After all, the President is made Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy and militias when called into the actual
service of the United States. It would have been a lot simpler to say
let the President go to war whenever he wants. Why didn't they do that?
Well, the Framers acted against a background of kings and princes
plunging their populations into wars of vanity and political advantage
to distract their people at home from the political problems of the
kingdom, of the monarchy. And our Framers were emphatic that the
awesome power of war, the power over life and death of our sons and
daughters, the power over our national treasure not be vested in one
man alone but, rather, in American democracy itself.
The representatives of the people, the people of Maryland and
Virginia and Florida and California and Idaho and Pennsylvania and
Michigan and Alaska and Hawaii, that is who the Framers vested the
power of war in: the Congress of the United States.
Now, the structural problem is that, if the Nation is actually
attacked or there is an imminent attack coming, the President may need
to respond in self-defense. Madison anticipated that, and Madison said
that might happen.
The Supreme Court, in 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, in the
Prize Cases, said that the President can act in those situations.
Lincoln embargoed and blockaded the Southern States, and that was
attacked as unconstitutional. They said, well, he was acting against a
real, imminent threat to the land and the people of the country.
Now, after the Vietnam war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution
in 1973, providing the President may engage our forces in hostilities
only with a declaration of war, a statutory authorization, or a
national emergency created by an attack upon our people or our Armed
Forces.
Now, under the War Powers Act, the President must consult Congress if
he thinks that he is acting in imminent self-defense of the country.
The President didn't do that. He talked to some other people at Mar-a-
Lago. He never talked to the Congress of the United States officially,
neither the Republicans nor the Democrats. He didn't contact the so-
called Gang of Eight of our top leadership in the intelligence and
security field.
He did notify us, in fairness to the President, within 48 hours of
his targeted killing, which many see, under international law, as an
act of war.
At this point, though, whether you think there was truly an imminent
crisis and this was something like Pearl Harbor or you think that the
President still has not given us a single compelling justification for
why he did it in
[[Page H88]]
acting under imminent self-defense, you think it is more like Gulf of
Tonkin, it doesn't make any difference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RASKIN. All of us, everybody in this Chamber at this point should
say that whatever imminent threat existed, whatever emergency there was
is gone, and now this country should not go to war without a
declaration of war by this Congress or statutory authorization, unless
we are attacked in the meantime.
That is the whole point of the War Powers Resolution, to enforce the
powers of Congress. We represent the people. We should not be going to
war in the name of the United States based on the word of one man. That
is not the constitutional design. It must be the Congress itself.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a January 3 CNN
article, entitled, ``Trump's Huge Iran Gamble Will Have Lasting
Impact.''
[From CNN, Jan. 3, 2020]
Trump's Huge Iran Gamble Will Have Lasting Impact
(By Stephen Collinson)
(CNN) President Donald Trump's targeted killing of Iran's
ruthless military and intelligence chief adds up to his most
dangerous gamble yet with other peoples' lives and his own
political fate.
By killing Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, Trump committed the
United States to a risky open conflict that at best could
stop short of all-out war with Iran that could cause national
security and economic shocks in the United States and across
the globe.
The administration argues that it has taken one of the
world's worst mass murderers and terrorists off the
battlefield. But given Iran's easy access to soft targets,
the Middle East and even Europe suddenly look a lot less safe
for Americans, including US troops Trump may be even more
tempted to haul home.
Two days into his re-election year, Trump--who rails
against Middle Eastern entanglements--has plunged the United
States into another one, with vast and unknown consequences.
It challenges a presidency that is already alienating half of
his country, following his impeachment and unrestrained
behavior in office. Trump may find it impossible to rally the
nation behind him to weather the crisis. He has also
scrambled strategic and moral expectations of the United
States--ordering the killing of a senior foreign leader of a
nation with whom the US is not formally at war--albeit an
official regarded by Washington as a terrorist.
Reflecting the strike's potential for escalation, a US
defense official said the administration would deploy a
further 3,000 troops to the Middle East, including 750 who
have already deployed to protect the US embassy in Baghdad.
The reverberations of his act on Thursday will last for
years.
``Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!''
Trump wrote on Friday morning in a tweet that will do nothing
to calm critics who worry about the depth of his strategic
thinking.
It is too early to know whether Soleimani's death will
significantly weaken Iran and improve the US strategic
position, whether it will ignite a regional conflagration and
how it will eventually affect Trump's political prospects and
legacy. It is also unclear how it will change the political
position inside Iran where the regime is besieged by an
economic crisis and recently crushed mass protests.
But Iran will surely regard the killing of one of its most
significant political leaders as an act of war, so its
revenge is likely to be serious and long lasting.
``There are definitely going to be unintended consequences,
and for starters I think we better have our embassies pretty
well buttoned down,'' former US Ambassador to Iraq
Christopher Hill told CNN.
``Iran simply cannot sit on its hands on this one. I think
there will be a reaction and I'm afraid it could get bloody
in places.''
Trump supporters are celebrating their hard man commander-
in-chief. They note that Soleimani orchestrated the deaths of
hundreds of US soldiers in militia attacks during the Iraq
War. But recent history is marked by spectacular US shock-
and-awe opening acts of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
that cause short-term gloating and long term military and
political disasters. A full-on conflict with Iran would be
far more complicated than those two wars.
Trump's strike may be the most significant calculated US
act in a 40-year Cold War with revolutionary Iran. It's the
biggest US foreign policy bet since the invasion of Iraq.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN's ``New Day'' that
killing Soleimani ``saved American lives'' and was based on
``imminent'' threat intelligence about an attack in the
region. Trump echoed his secretary of state later Friday
morning, tweeting that Soleimani ``was plotting to kill many
more'' Americans.
But Pompeo refused to give further details. The political
bar for an administration that has made a habit of
disinformation and lying is going to be far higher than that
in such a grave crisis. Eliminating the most powerful
political force in Iran short of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei also destroys the chimera that this White House is
not committed to a regime change strategy.
Given Soleimani's frequent travels to Iraq, Syria and other
areas in the Middle East this is not the first time that he
will have been in US crosshairs. But previous presidents,
perhaps cognizant of the inflammatory consequences, chose not
to take the shot. In the coming days, the administration will
have to explain why it acted now.
The act also likely eliminates possibly for a generation,
any hope that the United States and Iran can settle their
differences by talking. There will be no desire nor political
capital for even Iranian officials often misleadingly
described as moderates to sit down with US counterparts.
When Trump took office, there was no immediate crisis with
Iran. The Islamic Republic was honoring the Obama
administration's nuclear deal though it had not stepped back
from its missile development and what the US says is
malignant activity in its own neighborhood.
But by ripping up the deal, strangling the Iranian economy
and now killing Soleimani, Trump now owns however the
confrontation turns out. It's a huge gamble because history
suggests that Presidents who bet their careers on the jungle
of Middle East politics always lose.
The strike displays Trump's growing infatuation with
wielding military power, exacerbates a trend of unchecked
presidential authority and forges the kind of ruthless
vigilante image he adores.
The question is now whether Trump--an erratic,
inexperienced leader who abhors advice and rarely thinks more
than one step ahead--is equipped to handle such a perilous,
enduring crisis.
And is his administration, which seems bent on toppling
Iran's regime but cannot publicly come up with a plan for the
aftermath, ready to handle an Iranian backlash in the region
and beyond?
Trump's hubristic tweeting of a US flag following
Soleimani's death in a drone strike in Iraq but failure to
explain to Americans what is going on may be a bad sign in
this regard.
But despite a stream of instant Twitter analysis from
pundits suddenly expert in Iranian affairs, no one can be
sure what will happen next. That's what makes Trump's strike
so unpredictable and potentially dicey.
With the vast network of proxies from Hezbollah to Hamas,
Iran has the capacity to strike fast and hard against US
allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and US assets and
personnel in its region. It could hammer the global economy
by attacking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. US
officials and top military officers may be more exposed when
they travel abroad. Iran could explode Lebanon's fragile
political compact and causes region-wide shocks.
US troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan look especially
vulnerable to action by Iranian-allied forces. Politically,
the Baghdad government may have no choice but to ask American
forces to leave after the attack in a scenario that could
effectively deliver the country to Iran's influence or
retrigger its terrible civil war.
The killing of Soleimani is a massive symbolic blow to
Iran. He was the Godfather of the Middle East who
masterminded the country's huge regional influence.
Pompeo claimed that his demise will be greeted by Iraqis
and Iranians as a blow for freedom and a sign the United
States is on their side. But developments in Middle Eastern
politics rarely mirror the optimistic pronouncements of US
officials.
Did the US inflict a serious strategic blow on Iran?
Analysts will be looking to see whether the death of
Soleimani robs the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps of its coherence and dims its regional power at
least at first.
Tehran's strategic response is unclear. While it could lash
out, a wave of attacks against US soldiers or terrorist
strikes elsewhere may draw it into a direct conflict with a
more powerful rival, the United States that it does not seek.
It is not certain that it will strike back quickly. It may
have more to gain from making life intolerable for the United
States and its citizens in the region in a slow burn
approach.
Trump could be especially exposed to a such a military or
economic backlash by Iran that casts doubt on his judgment
given his quickening reelection race.
His move against Iran could also reshape the dynamics of
the presidential election race at home, by opening a lane for
Democrats to run as anti-war candidates against him--a
position that helped the last two presidents--Trump and
Barack Obama--get elected.
Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders on Friday released a
video vowing to do everything he can ``to prevent a war with
Iran.''
``Because if you think the war in Iraq was a disaster, my
guess is that the war in Iran would be even worse,'' the
Vermont senator said.
And Democratic front-runner Joe Biden immediately swung
into sober commander-in-chief mode, positioning himself to
profit politically if Trump's Iran venture backfires.
[[Page H89]]
The former vice president offered testimony to Soleimani's
record of fomenting bloodshed and instability but added:
``President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a
tinderbox.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 83.
Our single greatest responsibility is the safety and security of the
American people; and as the elected representatives of the American
people, it is our solemn duty to ensure that our country only engages
in armed conflict that is necessary and that, when we do, there are
clear objectives and a strategy for achieving those objectives.
The Trump administration has presented neither evidence that military
action is necessary nor a clear outline of their goals and a strategy
with respect to Iran.
Any decision to put American troops in harm's way should be debated
openly and honestly so that the American people have a say in their
future. Nothing in this resolution prevents the administration from
seeking authorization for future actions, but it does guarantee, as the
Constitution requires, that the American people, through their elected
representatives, have a voice in that decision.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I was in the class of Congress that was elected right
after September 11, 2001, that came into office in 2003.
After coming to office, through press reports and information in
various congressional hearings, we got information that Osama bin Laden
had declared war on the United States in 1997--I did not know that--and
that there had been actionable intelligence and Osama bin Laden could
have been taken out prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but the
administration in the 1990s decided not to do so.
Now, yesterday, fast-forwarding to present time, we heard from
General Mark Milley clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days,
weeks, and months that the administration would have been culpably
negligent if it did not act, all in regards to the killing of General
Soleimani.
{time} 1345
The President wants to keep the country safe. The President showed
remarkable restraint, I thought, yesterday, and I thought the tone in
his address to the Nation yesterday was precisely the right tone.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration
Policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
H. Con. Res. 83--Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(c) of
the War Powers Resolution to Terminate the Use of United States Armed
Forces to Engage in Hostilities in or Against Iran--Rep. Slotkin, D-MI,
and 134 cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes passage of H. Con. Res.
83, which purports to direct the President to terminate the
use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in
or against Iran or any part of its government or military
unless authorized by Congress.
At the President's direction, on January 2, the United
States military successfully executed a strike in Iraq that
killed Qassem Soleimani, the Commander of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, a designated foreign
terrorist organization. Soleimani was personally responsible
for terrible atrocities. He trained terrorist armies,
including Hezbollah, launching terror strikes against
civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the
region. He directed and facilitated actions that viciously
wounded and murdered thousands of United States troops,
including by planting bombs that maim and dismember their
victims. In eliminating Soleimani from the battlefield, the
President took action to stop a war, not to start a war. He
took action to protect our diplomats, our service members,
our allies, and all Americans.
Although concurrent resolutions like H. Con. Res. 83 lack
the force of law under controlling Supreme Court precedent,
I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), it is nevertheless
important to highlight some of its deficiencies.
First, H. Con. Res. 83 is unnecessary because the military
actions to which it applies are already authorized by law,
including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) (``2002 AUMF'').
The 2002 AUMF provides specific statutory authorization to
engage in military action to ``defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq.'' Public Law 107-243, Sec. 3(a)(1). The United States
forces that have been threatened by Iranian and Iran-backed
attacks in Iraq are there to combat terrorist groups--such as
ISIS. Thus, in addition to acting in accordance with his
Constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive, the President also acted against Soleimani
pursuant to existing statutory authorization. The 2002 AUMF
has always been understood to authorize the use of force for,
among other purposes, addressing terrorist threats--like
Soleimani and the attacks he was planning and facilitating--
emanating from Iraq. This is consistent with actions taken by
previous Presidents pursuant to the 2002 AUMF. For example,
during the last administration, United States forces
frequently conducted operations in response to attacks and
threats by Iran-backed militias in Iraq under the authority
conferred by the 2002 AUMF. Moreover, the Administration's
engagement with Congress on this strike has been fully in
accordance with past precedent, including by providing
notification consistent with the War Powers Resolution and by
briefing Congressional leadership, the full membership of the
House and Senate, and appropriate staff.
Second, were provisions like those included in H. Con. Res.
83 to become law, they could undermine the President's
ability to defend United States forces and interests in the
region against ongoing threats from Iran and its proxies.
Iran has a long history of attacking United States and
coalition forces both directly and through its proxies,
including, most recently, by means of a January 7 missile
attack from Iran against United States forces stationed at
two bases in Iraq. Over the last several months, Soleimani
planned and supported these escalating attacks by Iranian-
directed Shia militia groups on coalition bases throughout
Iraq. He orchestrated the December 27, 2019 attack on an
Iraqi military base, which resulted in the death of a United
States citizen and badly wounded four United States service
members. Soleimani also approved the subsequent attack later
that month on the United States Embassy in Baghdad, which
turned violent and damaged the Embassy facility. At the time
of the January 2 strike, Soleimani was in Iraq in violation
of a United Nations Security Council travel ban and was
actively developing plans to imminently attack United States
diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the
region. Subsequently, Iran launched an attack against the
United States. Were Congress to attempt to compel the
President to adhere to a resolution like H. Con. Res. 83, it
could hinder the President's ability to protect United States
forces and interests in the region from the continued threat
posed by Iran and its proxies.
This concurrent resolution is misguided, and its adoption
by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States
to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to
harm.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, ``no'' vote on the rule, the underlying measure, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I think what the President did was a grave
miscalculation, but we can't change the past. We can only shape the
future.
I have raised concerns about executive overreach during the Bush
administration; I raised them during the Obama administration; and
today, I am here to raise those concerns about the Trump
administration.
I hope there is no war with Iran, but we have seen that developments
can change day by day, hour by hour. Should tensions escalate again,
Congress should have a say before hostilities are launched. It is
really that simple.
This should be the easiest vote in the world for Members of Congress.
Regardless of what you think about what the President has done,
regardless whether you agree with his policies or not, and regardless
of your political affiliation, this is about ensuring that we have a
say about what may come next.
There is nothing radical about this. The Constitution gives only
Congress the ability to declare war. Let's reclaim our power and let's
do our jobs.
My friends say they want to honor our troops. Well, talk is cheap.
How about honoring our troops by doing our job, by living up to our
constitutional responsibilities. War is a big deal. We ought to take it
seriously here. I and some of my Republican friends over the years have
raised issues with Democratic and Republican administrations about the
ease in which they commit our troops to hostilities. Enough is enough.
[[Page H90]]
No more endless wars. Congress has to live up to its constitutional
responsibility. Let's reclaim our power. Let's do our job.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House
Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member
serving in this body on September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful
and tragic war in Iraq, and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong
support of the rule governing debate of H. Con. Res. 83, a concurrent
resolution directing the President to terminate the engagement of
United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against Iran, as well
as the underlying legislation.
I thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin,
for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair
Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution.
I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the
House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the
American people safe by limiting the President from taking further
precipitous military actions regarding Iran.
We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that
while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is
the nation that goes to war.
And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and
take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but
through Article I, Section, clause 11 in the collective judgment of
Congress, the representatives of the American people.
It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to
self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the
right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad.
But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must
inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a
certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the
window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future
disastrous attacks against the United States.
Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a
position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action.
Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L.
93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged
in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific
statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President
if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.''
The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020 by the
President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major
architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important
question of why the action was taken at that time.
Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or
been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action
was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the
United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel.
The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns
of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the
killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the
product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after
extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding
the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and
our nation and its people.
Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the
hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation
and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether
there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does
not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the
United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East
placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons.
Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the
Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al
Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian
civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw
the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently
demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country.
Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been
suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to
assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and
bore responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by
Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq.
Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran,
the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the
Middle East.
But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a
high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to
the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of
Iran.
It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by
American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at
risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in
the region and across the globe.
It must be remembered, Madam Speaker, the United States has national
interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries
in the region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a
nuclear weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran,
and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to
government corruption and violations of basic human rights.
For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in
place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for
managing disputes with Iran.
That does not appear to be the case.
There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress
or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our
allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a
working and well-functioning national security council apparatus.
This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle
East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the
Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.''
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh
retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the
action taken by the Administration.
It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to
counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure
to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to
protect the security of the homeland.
The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has
the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political
leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir
presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914.
One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but
so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The
Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes
result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are
overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill-
founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political
backlash warfare.
Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into
harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in
the Congress and the President.
Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the
decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and
otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in
secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national
security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide
requested information.
The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when
to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between
the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American
people.
The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003
and continuing to this day has taught this nation the importance of
having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use
military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting
precipitously or unwisely.
We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake.
That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the
concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to
terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage
in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or
military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific
statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of
the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an
imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or
possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of
the War Powers Resolution.
Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of
the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United
States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be
employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and
[[Page H91]]
safety in America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be
placed at risk.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 781
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 783) honoring the members of the military
and intelligence community who carried out the mission that
killed Qasem Soleimani, and for other purposes. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division
of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall
not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 783.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--227
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--191
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Buchanan
Crawford
Diaz-Balart
Fitzpatrick
Hunter
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Loudermilk
McEachin
Serrano
Simpson
{time} 1413
Mrs. HARTZLER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 5.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DelBene). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--226
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
[[Page H92]]
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Buchanan
Crawford
Fitzpatrick
Hunter
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Loudermilk
McEachin
Serrano
Simpson
{time} 1422
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H92-H116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 781, I call up
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) directing the President
pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the
use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or
against Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 781, the
amendment printed in House Report 116-371 is adopted, and the
concurrent resolution, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 83
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
TO ENGAGE IN HOSTILITIES IN OR AGAINST IRAN.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of
terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities
across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was
the lead architect of much of Iran's destabilizing activities
throughout the world.
(2) The United States has an inherent right to self-defense
against imminent armed attacks. The United States maintains
the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel
serving abroad.
(3) In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive
branch should indicate to Congress why military action was
necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the
possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why
the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks
against the United States.
(4) The United States has national interests in preserving
its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region,
including by--
(A) combating terrorists, including the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
(B) preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons
capability; and
(C) supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other
countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to
government corruption and violations of basic human rights.
(5) Over the past eight months, in response to rising
tensions with Iran, the United States has introduced over
15,000 additional forces into the Middle East.
(6) When the United States uses military force, the
American people and members of the United States Armed Forces
deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military
force.
(7) The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.)
requires the President to consult with Congress ``in every
possible instance'' before introducing United States Armed
Forces into hostilities.
(8) Congress has not authorized the President to use
military force against Iran.
(b) Termination.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War
Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby
directs the President to terminate the use of United States
Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or
any part of its government or military, unless--
(1) Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory
authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or
(2) such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and
appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon
the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War
Powers Resolution.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed--
(1) to prevent the President from using military force
against al Qaeda or associated forces;
(2) to limit the obligations of the executive branch set
forth in the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.);
(3) to affect the provisions of an Act or joint resolution
of Congress specifically authorizing the use of United States
Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran or any
part of its government or military that is enacted after the
date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution;
(4) to prevent the use of necessary and appropriate
military force to defend United States allies and partners if
authorized by Congress consistent with the requirements of
the War Powers Resolution; or
(5) to authorize the use of military force.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall
be debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 83, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are here this afternoon so that this body can exercise one of its
most
[[Page H93]]
important constitutional responsibilities, deciding on whether or not
this country will wage war, whether or not we will check an executive
that has brought our country to a dangerous brink.
In recent months, tensions between the United States and Iran have
ticked up, bit by bit, until this last week, when we found ourselves in
a crisis like we haven't seen in decades.
Let's be clear: The Iranians are responsible for their own harmful
behavior. We know this is a regime that underwrites terrorism, that
tries to strengthen its own position by fomenting instability and
provocation. We know that about Iran. No one expects Iran to be the
adult in the room when it comes to global affairs.
What we do expect is that American leadership and American policy
will be the moderating force.
So the world was stunned last week when the Trump administration
chose, instead, the path towards escalation with the killing of Qasem
Soleimani.
We need to be honest about Soleimani. He was a bad guy. He had
masterminded attacks and campaigns that cost thousands of innocent
lives. In the places where we have seen Iran's most harmful activity,
Soleimani's fingerprints were everywhere. He had American blood on his
hands, and the world is better off without him.
But are we really safer today, as the administration claims, with
American citizens told to get out of Iraq as fast as they can;
thousands of troops deploying to the Middle East; an eviction notice
from the Iraqi Government, whose partnership we depend on in the fight
against ISIS; Iranian missiles endangering American personnel?
It certainly doesn't feel like we are safer, and a poll out today
shows that the American people agree.
In foreign policy, you have to weigh decisions like this. As awful as
Soleimani was, this action has endangered American lives and American
security.
The President and his advisers say they had no choice; that there was
imminent threat. Then they said, well, he had done bad things in the
past and was going to do more bad things in the future. When they sent
a report on the strike to Congress, the administration took the highly
unusual step of classifying it.
And then yesterday, in a classified briefing, when Members demanded
to see the evidence that justified the strike, the message from the
administration essentially boiled down to this: Trust us. When we
asked, What is the plan going forward? The administration essentially
told Members: Trust us.
Trust us is not good enough, Madam Speaker, not for me, and not for
the American people.
Madam Speaker, if they are going to send our men and women in uniform
into harm's way, they shouldn't hide the facts.
First of all, this administration hasn't given us any reason to
believe that this is a fact. The foreign policy of this administration
has undermined American leadership, cut our diplomats off at the knees,
alienated our allies, and walked away from our obligations. We have
lurched from crisis to crisis, each time hoping that the situation
won't spin out of control.
I call it fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants foreign policy, and it is no
way to advance American interests and values on the global stage.
But beyond that, beyond the way this administration has acted, it is
not the job of Congress to give any administration its blind trust. It
is why we have separation of powers. It is why the Constitution
entrusts war powers to Congress.
Let me say that again. It is why the Constitution entrusts war powers
to Congress. We haven't had a declared war in this country since World
War II. It is not the way it should happen.
So it is a relief that both the administration and the Iranians have,
for the moment, opted to de-escalate. But we would be foolish to think
this crisis is over. It could flame up again in the blink of an eye,
and I worry that another misstep on either side could be what plunges
our country into another ill-advised war in the Middle East.
I will say it very plainly: The American people do not want war with
Iran. With the measure before us today, we are denying the President
the authority to wage such a war.
This would direct the President to terminate the use of armed force
against Iran without congressional authorization unless it is necessary
to respond to an imminent armed attack against the United States.
The President always has the power to defend America. No one denies
that. This resolution explicitly preserves this right, but that is a
limited exception. The President shouldn't abuse it.
Now, we have heard the argument that the 2002 Authorization for the
Use of Military Force, the Iraq war authorization, would justify
military action against Iran. That is just wrong. It is not what
Congress intended when it passed that resolution. I was here. I
remember it. It should be repealed, not used to launch more military
action.
If the President wants to use military force against Iran, he has to
come to Congress. Any President has to come to Congress. We are not
making rules only for this President. We are making rules for the
President, any President, vis-a-vis, Congress' constitutional powers.
The President has to make the case first, first, not after he
launches an ill-advised attack, then after the fact, comes up with a
reason why it was necessary and why it was legal. That is not the way
our system works.
Today, I have heard the myth floating around that this resolution is
nonbinding; that it is just symbolic. So let me quote from the War
Powers Act to prove that untrue.
The War Powers law says: ``At any time that United States Armed
Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United
States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or
specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the
President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' Again,
by concurrent resolution. That is what the War Powers Act states that
we need do. That is what we are doing today.
This is the House of Representatives exercising its Article I
authority. We don't get authority over war powers just because--if the
President says so. We get authority over war powers, period. That is
our authority. So let's put that fiction to rest.
And one final point, Madam Speaker, about the tone of this debate.
Yesterday, a Member of this body went on television and said that
Democrats ``are in love with terrorists. They mourn Soleimani more than
they mourn our Gold Star families.''
Another Member labeled a group of colleagues ``Ayatollah
sympathizers.''
At a time when we are talking about policy that will have direct
bearing on American men and women, servicemembers and diplomats in
harm's way, comments like that reflect very poorly on this body. And I
remind the House that all Members, in both parties, regardless of
party, love this country. These words have no place in this debate.
On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we take pride in debating issues,
even the toughest issues, on the merits and on the facts. I salute my
friend, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for working so closely with me
to make sure we do so. That is one of the keys of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
I strongly encourage all Members on both sides to bear that in mind
during this debate. We all take the same oath. We can argue about this
resolution without questioning one another's motives or one another's
patriotism.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 83.
When President Obama took down Osama Bin Laden, the Republican
Members joined with Democrats, as Americans, to praise the President.
Unfortunately, today, Democrats are incapable of giving this President
credit where credit is due, which only emboldens Iran.
I am surprised to be faced with this partisan resolution today. We
should be standing together, as the chairman mentioned, as a Nation.
Instead, this resolution plays politics with national security.
Yesterday, the President laid out a measured response to Iran's
ballistic missile attacks. Let me be clear. The President is not
seeking war with Iran. The President has shown, if anything,
[[Page H94]]
great restraint regarding Iran, including after Iran's downing of a
U.S. drone, a U.S. military asset.
But in their blind contempt for the President, my colleagues are
ignoring the assessments of career intelligence and military
professionals.
{time} 1445
Our colleagues on the other side are downplaying the murderous evil
of Soleimani, the mastermind of terror in the Middle East for over two
decades.
Soleimani was designated as a terrorist by the Obama administration.
He was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans and
wounded thousands more.
Soleimani was involved in the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi
Ambassador to the United States on American soil in Georgetown, right
in this city. Soleimani oversaw Iran's support for Assad in Syria,
including convincing Russia to fight for Assad, killing hundreds of
thousands. This year, Soleimani played a key role in the crackdown on
protestors in Iraq that killed hundreds of Iraqis.
It should be clear to any reasonable person that Soleimani posed a
long-term threat to the United States and to innocent civilians in the
Middle East and across the globe. We don't need to get into classified
details to see Soleimani's clear threat.
According to the Department of Defense, in the last 2 months,
Soleimani and his proxies launched 12 attacks against U.S. forces and
facilities in Iraq. On December 27, Soleimani's Iranian proxies killed
an American and injured four U.S. servicemembers near Kirkuk. On
December 31, Soleimani's Iranian proxies launched an assault on the
United States Embassy in Baghdad.
But Soleimani was not done. Secretary Pompeo said that Soleimani was
``actively plotting'' to take ``big action'' that would ``put dozens if
not hundreds of American lives at risk,'' which DOD said targeted
American diplomats and servicemembers in Iraq and throughout the
region.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, said that the
administration would have been ``culpably negligent,'' given the
evidence and intelligence they had, had they not acted.
The President possessed the legal authority for this strike and
complied with his obligation to report it to Congress within 48 hours
under the War Powers Resolution. The President has inherent Article II
authority as Commander in Chief to defend United States personnel from
attacks that Soleimani was carrying out and plotting against Americans.
It is an act of self-defense.
This is not just a partisan analysis. Jeh Johnson, President Obama's
general counsel at the Department of Defense and former Secretary of
Homeland Security, approved the airstrikes during the Obama
administration. He stated that Soleimani ``was a lawful military
objective, and the President, under his constitutional authority as
Commander in Chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out
without an additional congressional authorization.'' That was President
Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security.
As a second authority, the National Security Adviser cited the 2002
AUMF that authorized the use of force ``to defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.''
That authorization has been used previously to address terrorist
threats to U.S. personnel inside Iraq, including by President Obama to
go after ISIS terrorist forces in Iraq.
The dangerously partisan reactions to last week's strike in defense
of Americans are even more apparent when compared to Democratic
reactions to Obama's thousands of unauthorized airstrikes in defense of
Libyans inside Libya in 2011.
Back in June 2011, then-Leader Pelosi was asked about the Obama
administration's months of airstrikes inside Libya, dropping hundreds
of millions of dollars in U.S. munitions without congressional
authorization. Leader Pelosi was asked: ``Madam Leader, you are saying
that the President did not need authorization initially and still does
not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?'' Her answer was,
``Yes.''
She said: ``I believe the limited nature of this engagement allows
the President to go forward. . . . I am satisfied that the President
has the authority he needs to go ahead.''
That logic should apply far more in the strike against Soleimani to
protect Americans.
I am pleased the administration did not hesitate to take bold action,
given the high threat level. Soleimani showed us through the embassy
attack and the attacks on U.S. forces that he was serious about hurting
Americans.
Our intelligence community saw his next plan coming together, and our
military, under direction from our Commander in Chief, acted. They saw
the storm coming, and they stopped it.
I thank the President and the men and women of our intelligence
community and the military for upholding their responsibility to
protect American lives. Instead of supporting the President,
unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues are dividing Americans at a
critical time, weakening our leverage overseas and emboldening our
enemy, the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution, which seeks to tie the
President's hands as he continues to defend Americans in the Middle
East.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), the author of this important resolution.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, a War
Powers Resolution that states that the President of the United States
must consult Congress before going to war with Iran. This is simply
what our Constitution requires.
For me, this is not a theoretical exercise. My husband spent 30 years
in the Army and retired as a colonel. We actually met on my third tour
in Iraq, when I was a CIA officer. My stepdaughter is a brand-new Army
officer. My son-in-law's unit is stationed at Al Asad Air Base, which
was just targeted by ballistic missiles this week.
If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted
war, the President owes the American public a conversation. The
resolution we will be voting on today allows us to start that debate,
as our Founders intended.
Let me be clear: The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of
terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the
Middle East. I have experienced these personally as a former CIA
analyst. I served multiple tours in Iraq, three tours. My specialty is
Iranian-backed Shia militias.
I have followed Iran's destabilizing activity in Iraq up close for my
entire professional career. I have watched friends and colleagues hurt
or killed by Iranian rockets, mortars, and explosive devices. Iranian
General Qasem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran's
destabilizing activities in the Middle East and throughout the world.
To that end, with Iran or with any other adversary, the United States
always has the inherent right and obligation to self-defense against
imminent armed attacks--always. The United States always maintains the
right and the responsibility to ensure the safety of our diplomatic
personnel and our Armed Forces serving abroad.
When it comes to the matter of longer term war either as something
that we choose as a Nation or as something that we find ourselves in,
as Members of this body, we have a constitutional responsibility to
authorize the use of military force.
The Framers of our Constitution rightly believed that the power to
declare war belongs in the Congress because this would ensure that the
American people, through the legislators they elected, weigh the most
significant decision a government can make.
To this end, the resolution does a few simple things.
First, it states that the President does not currently have
authorization for war against Iran, which his own Secretary of Defense
acknowledged in a congressional hearing last month.
Second, it requires the President to get congressional authorization
if he wants to conduct a protracted war with Iran.
Third, it makes clear that the President maintains the authority to
use force to prevent imminent attacks against the United States or our
forces. As someone who has spent her career
[[Page H95]]
in national security, it is extremely important to me that this
resolution in no way ties the President's hands or takes away any
capabilities from our military commanders to respond in self-defense
for ourselves and our allies.
We have been at war for nearly two decades, which has spanned both
Republican and Democratic administrations, as my colleague pointed out.
In that time, Congress has voted only twice to authorize the use of
military force, in 2001 and 2002.
Congress has long abdicated its responsibility as laid out in the
Constitution to make the hard decisions we owe our troops when it comes
to authorizing war. We owe it to our military and to ourselves as a
Nation to open this conversation on the authorization of military
force, to provide our troops that clarity, and to abide by the
Constitution that we have all sworn to protect.
I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this
resolution. I know it is a political time, but my attempt was to hew
exactly to what our Founders intended.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The United States and our allies are safer with Qasem Soleimani gone.
President Trump's decisive leadership was justified, and it was right.
Soleimani had the blood of over 600 American servicemembers on his
hands. For more than 20 years, he attacked our troops, established a
brutal reign of terror across the Middle East, and was directly
responsible for the death of thousands of innocent civilians, including
in his own country. And he had more terror planned.
As President Trump said, this strike was done to prevent a war, not
start one. In yesterday's address, he was true to his word. He was
confident and restrained. Even as he underscored our strength and
resolve, he extended the people of Iran our hand in peace and
friendship. President Trump's decision to embrace the Reagan doctrine
of peace through strength in dealing with Iran has worked.
Those who criticize President Trump for Iran's dangerous foreign
policy should actually spend a few moments to review their history. It
is Iran that is responsible for escalating tensions by creating chaos
to spread fear and accumulate power.
In the decades since 1979's revolution, Iran has become the number
one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. More recently, it shot
down an American military drone and seized a British oil tanker.
On December 27, Iranian proxies crossed the line by killing an
American. For the first time since 1988, we have an administration
willing to strike back. From most of the media reports, many may know
him only as an unnamed U.S. contractor killed in Iraq, but he was more
than that. His name was Nawres Hamid. He was a husband. He was the
father of two young sons. He was a resident of California.
Before Nawres became a citizen, he was valiantly serving alongside
our troops as a linguist. All of our hearts break for his wife and
children, who are left mourning his death.
There are some in this Chamber who seem to be downplaying his death,
but his death matters. It matters to his family. It matters to his
countrymen. It matters to the President. It matters to me. His death
was unnecessary, unprovoked, and it deserved justice.
That is why my next statement carries even more meaning. Red lines
should mean something. In this administration, they do. Killing Nawres
was a red line. Planning to kill Americans is a red line.
I am confident that the right decision was to take out the man
responsible for Nawres' death and the death of hundreds of other
Americans.
Iran responded earlier this week by sending missiles to U.S. bases in
Iraq. I believe we are all relieved and grateful that there were no
American casualties. Iran appears to be pulling back from its strategy
of provocation in the face of firm American determination. Iran seems
to understand that deescalation is right for them and the world.
Now is the time for our country to come together and speak with one
voice, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.
{time} 1500
Instead of working with this administration to continue to work
toward shared goals, Democrats are using this moment to continue their
hatred toward the President.
As my colleague and former CIA officer Will Hurd said, he never
thought he would see the day that the Iranian Government would be able
to manipulate Members of Congress, Democratic Presidential candidates,
and the Western media, yet here we are on this floor today.
If President Trump's instinct is to put America first, his critics'
instinct is to blame America first.
The words of my Democratic colleagues, including the Speaker of the
House, blame the United States for attacks Iran has been initiating for
the past four decades. Now, they want to limit the President's ability
to defend America. That is just dangerous.
I want to clear up some news, Madam Speaker, that I actually even
recently heard on this floor. I would probably consider it fake news
that Democrats have told the American people.
Contrary to their claim, the resolution before the House today is
nonbinding. It is called a concurrent resolution. This resolution, if
passed, won't go to the President's desk for signature. It won't have
the power of law.
Madam Speaker, I heard the chairman try to claim that this had power.
I know we have three coequal branches of government.
Madam Speaker, I think the chairman should actually look at what the
Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case, that concurrent resolutions are
unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive branch. I think I
may need to read it twice, so let's do that.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case that concurrent
resolutions are unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive
branch. The purpose of a concurrent resolution is to deal with mundane
housekeeping matters in Congress.
Now, I want everybody to know and understand what we have used
concurrent resolutions for--it is very important: to authorize the use
of the Capitol Grounds for the Soap Box Derby, to use the rotunda to
present a congressional medal to Jack Nicklaus, and to host a birthday
party in the Capitol Visitor Center. But the new majority decided to
use it for something different.
For a party that wants to claim they care about the Constitution,
Madam Speaker, Democrats may want to brush up on their facts. If they
did, they would realize their actions today are shameful and
embarrassing, even by the low standards they set in their impeachment
inquiry.
They seem to have forgotten that we are not the House of Resolutions.
We are, actually, the U.S. House of Representatives. Our job isn't to
debate feelings. Our job isn't to make recommendations. We are,
actually, elected to make law.
But that is not how we are spending our time today. This resolution
has as much force of law as a new year's resolution. It is nothing more
than a press release to appease their socialist base.
What message is it sending to Iran? That we are strong, determined,
and united as a country, or that we are divided, shortsighted, and
weak?
Madam Speaker, ``In war, resolution,'' and, ``in peace, goodwill.''
Winston Churchill wrote those words after he led Britain to victory in
the Second World War. They describe what he believed were the right
actions for great leaders to take at history's defining moment.
We should keep Churchill's words in mind today. President Trump
clearly has. Because of President Trump's leadership, the United States
and our allies are safer today than we were exactly 1 week ago.
Petty politics are wrong for the country, especially now. Not liking
President Trump is not an excuse for failing to see that the President
and his administration have a sensible and deeply American strategy for
dealing with Iran.
Madam Speaker, I imagine we will continue to hear from other
Democrats defending Iran for their escalation and the death of an
American. Madam Speaker, I imagine that the Democrats will try to claim
a concurrent resolution is more than a Soap Box Derby, but the Supreme
Court says otherwise.
[[Page H96]]
Madam Speaker, I imagine I will hear a lot from the Democrats today.
I would like to hear a Democrat speak to the 600 Gold Star families
whose loved ones were killed by Soleimani. I would like to hear them
defend that.
I would like to hear them defend Iran and their actions of burning an
embassy, of killing an American, of killing thousands of civilians even
in their own country. But they are going to take our time today with
something that means nothing.
Yes, they will run to the mikes. They will get on TV. They will tell
a little more fake news, that it meant something today.
The only thing that will happen today is it will make Iran believe
they are stronger. It will make Iran believe they have allies in the
House of Representatives.
Today is a day that we will not be proud of.
Madam Speaker, in light of the information that we have coming out of
Iran, if it is true, of why an airliner was shot down, if that was the
case, I would like to see a Democrat move to the floor and pull this
concurrent resolution. If it means nothing else, I think we should have
all the facts.
I look forward to listening, Madam Speaker, to any Democrat who wants
to speak to the Gold Star families about why they want to have a debate
today and tell them that ``Soleimani is bad, but.'' It is not ``but'';
it is ``because,'' because he killed Americans, because he killed
thousands of civilians. That is why he was taken out, and the world is
safer because of it.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the defense from the other
side.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the Republican leader is
casting aspersions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle takes
this seriously and has reasons for what we are voting on.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Khanna), a gentleman who has been very involved in
these issues for a long, long time and has been a real leader in these
issues.
Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel for yielding and
for his leadership.
I rise today not as a partisan but as someone concerned about
America's future.
We have worked across the aisle with people like Representative
Meadows and others to stop our country from getting into endless wars.
There is not one party that wants to stop these wars; this is in our
national interest.
Now, let's be very clear. Soleimani had blood on his hands. Soleimani
was a bad actor. Soleimani killed Americans. That is not the debate.
The debate is whether America should get into another war in the
Middle East or whether we should be focused on our real competition,
which is China.
We are 21 percent of the world's GDP. China, our competition for the
21st century, is 15 percent. Iran is 0.44 percent of GDP.
China hasn't been in a war since 1979. We are in 40 conflicts.
Future historians will ask why we were so obsessed with a region, the
Middle East, with 3.5 percent of GDP, when we should have been focused
on investing in our country to build the future, to win the 21st
century.
I don't think staying out of bad wars that cost this country
trillions of dollars is a Democratic issue or a Republican issue.
Frankly, the President ran on this.
I know Leader McCarthy says this is a formality. Under the War Powers
Act, you are supposed to have a concurrent resolution.
My hope is the President will agree with this and not get us into a
war with Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I will make my final point. This shouldn't be partisan.
Here is what I would love to see, that the President says, in the
future action, he is not going to get into a war and that he agrees
with the concurrent resolution that this body passes.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution, which curtails the President's authority to protect
American interests in the Middle East.
Two weeks ago, Iranian proxies launched a missile attack on American
forces in Iraq. This was the 11th such rocket attack by the Iranians in
recent months. This time, as our leader said, it killed Nawres Hamid,
who was a husband, a father, a contractor, and an American citizen.
The man behind this attack and additional attacks that were being
planned and that were imminent was the terrorist mastermind Qasem
Soleimani, who was responsible for the deaths, as we have heard, of at
least 600, probably many more, Americans and for thousands of others in
that part of the world, and for causing destabilization throughout the
entire region.
For years now, Soleimani had been leading Iran's shadow war against
us and against our allies. In targeting Soleimani, President Trump took
bold, long-overdue action, and he ought to be supported for this
decision, not criticized.
This resolution, by condemning even limited military force and
limited action, would essentially tie the President's hands behind his
back as he tries to counter Iran's shadow campaign against us.
Madam Speaker, it makes no sense, this resolution, and I strongly
urge my colleagues to oppose it and vote against it.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, America is not safe or safer because
of the acts that occurred local time on January 3, 2020.
America is in more jeopardy, as are our brave men and women in the
United States military, whom we hold in the highest esteem and say to
their families: We are obligated and committed to honoring and thanking
you, but to also recognizing, when we send you into battle, there would
and should be the consultation, the engagement, the understanding of
the intelligence and the work between Article I, the United States
Congress, and Article II, the President of the United States.
I will not allow any Member of Congress to malign my Gold Star
families or to suggest that any Member here does not respect the
ultimate sacrifice that their family members took. Family members who
are Gold Star should not be used in a political debate. They should
only be honored.
And I will not accept anyone describing Democrats as mourning
terrorists.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, what I will say is that nothing in
this resolution speaks to any named person. It says that this body,
this Congress, must adhere to its duty to be able to ensure that the
President of the United States does not unilaterally take us into war
with Iran. We will not stand for it.
It does, as well, say that my resolution in 2002 indicated that we
should not have gone to war in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the
Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member serving in this body on
September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful and tragic war in Iraq,
and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
83, a concurrent resolution directing the President to terminate the
engagement of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against
Iran.
l thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin,
for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair
Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution.
I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the
House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the
American people safe by limiting the President from taking further
precipitous military actions regarding Iran.
We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that
while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is
the nation that goes to war.
And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and
take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but
through Article I, Section, clause 11
[[Page H97]]
in the collective judgment of Congress, the representatives of the
American people.
It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to
self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the
right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad.
But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must
inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a
certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the
window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future
disastrous attacks against the United States.
Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a
position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action.
Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L.
93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged
in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific
statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President
if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.''
The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020, local time by
the President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major
architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important
question of why the action was taken at that time.
Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or
been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action
was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the
United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel.
The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns
of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the
killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the
product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after
extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding
the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and
our nation and its people.
Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the
hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation
and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether
there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does
not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the
United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East
placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons.
Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the
Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al
Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian
civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw
the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently
demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country.
Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been
suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to
assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and bore
responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by
Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq.
Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran,
the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the
Middle East.
But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a
high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to
the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of
Iran.
It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by
American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at
risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in
the region and across the globe.
It must be remembered that the United States has national interests
in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the
region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear
weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other
countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government
corruption and violations of basic human rights.
For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in
place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for
managing disputes with Iran.
That does not appear to be the case.
There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress
or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our
allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a
working and well-functioning national security council apparatus.
This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle
East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the
Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.''
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh
retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the
action taken by the Administration.
It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to
counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure
to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to
protect the security of the homeland.
The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has
the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political
leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir
presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914.
One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but
so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The
Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes
result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are
overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill-
founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political
backlash warfare.
Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into
harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in
the Congress and the President.
Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the
decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and
otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in
secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national
security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide
requested information.
The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when
to use military force to protect the Nation and its interests between
the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American
people.
The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003
and continuing to this day has taught this Nation the importance of
having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use
military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting
precipitously or unwisely.
We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake.
That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the
concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to
terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage
in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or
military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific
statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of
the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an
imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or
possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of
the War Powers Resolution.
Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of
the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United
States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be
employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and safety in
America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be placed at
risk.
Madam Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound
question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international
relations in the 21st century. Before us today is the serious and
fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress
will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war.
Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is
further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new
foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a
unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have
utilized our diplomatic options.
My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal
is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It
provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the
American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction.
The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic
process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections
and enhanced containment.
It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term
consequences for the United States of codifying the President's
announced doctrine of preemption.
The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before
we have even tried to pursue them.
[[Page H98]]
We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what
we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its
people, we do not need this resolution.
If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere,
the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our
defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United
Nations Charter.
Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little
chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S.
forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become
much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This
is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires
sober thought and careful reflection.
President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law,
the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It
will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries
maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan?
China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?
I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge
other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This
approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces
of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for
peace in the region.
Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we
should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast
commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we
move into the 21st century.
As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations
do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a
chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in
eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam
Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors
destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of
mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process. In
addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an
enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials
or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance technology
on the border to detect such materials.
As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries
bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations
Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in
the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on
nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake
and which can lead to success.
What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century
international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism
and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our
choice.
During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear.
They still should.
I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is
contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a
terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global
stability and for our own moral authority.
We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where
they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as
representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action
will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of
lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have
choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give
U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work. What this
resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States
will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other
diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption,
and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national
interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.
I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United
Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, this week, universally
respected Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, provided an extraordinary
op-ed in The Wall Street Journal: ``President Trump's order to take out
Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally, and strategically
correct. . . . No American can dispute that Soleimani created,
supported, and directed a network of terrorist organizations that
spread havoc in the Middle East.'' In Syria, ``more than 500,000
Syrians have died.''
``During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran.'' These
trained fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers.
The claim that President Trump ``had no authority to order this
attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and
practically senseless. . . . Democrats should leave partisan politics
at `the water's edge' and . . . stand together against Iran and
dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.''
Senator Joe Lieberman tells the truth. We must resist: ``Death to
America,'' ``Death to Israel.''
I extend our sympathies to the family of Nawres Hamid, an Iraqi
American Muslim from California, who was murdered by Soleimani-financed
terrorists 13 days ago.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a valuable member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
{time} 1515
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 83,
directing the President to cease military hostilities against Iran.
Last week, President Trump ordered a provocative and disproportionate
drone strike, killing Quds Force commander Major General Qasem
Soleimani.
Soleimani was a malign actor who masterminded the killings of many
U.S. soldiers, but assassinating him has unleashed the dogs of war.
Iran launched a dozen ballistic missiles against two U.S. military
bases in Iraq, and we must be prepared for further Iranian retaliation.
These threats stem from the President's fateful and reckless decision
to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, a deal that was working by
every measure, leaving us with no leverage and Iran with nothing to
lose.
We don't need another war. Peace demands action now. That is why
Congress must reassert its solemn constitutional duty under Article I
to decide when and where the United States goes to war. This resolution
does just that.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, on Tuesday night, Iran launched at least a dozen
ballistic missiles against two U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Thankfully, there were no American casualties, but I remain concerned
about further Iranian retaliation.
These attacks come after President Trump ordered a drone strike that
assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qasem
Soleimani.
Soleimani was a bad actor and masterminded the killings of many U.S.
soldiers in Iraq and Lebanon. He will not be missed.
But killing Soleimani was supposed to make us safer. In reality, the
President's order has unleashed the dogs of war.
What is unfolding now is the result of the Trump Administration's
incoherent foreign policy, stemming from its fateful and reckless
decision to withdraw the United States from our own agreement, the Iran
nuclear deal.
By all accounts, prior to our withdrawal, Iran was in compliance with
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
It was only after our withdrawal, and re-imposition of sanctions
lifted under the agreement, that Iran began to exceed its stockpile of
low-enriched uranium, and then resume uranium enrichment.
Following the Soleimani strike, Iran has vowed to ignore all
restrictions set by the nuclear deal. This move has set in motion the
very thing we were seeking to avoid--a nuclear-armed Iran.
Our abrogation of the Iran nuclear agreement leaves us with no
leverage and Iran with nothing to lose.
Iran and its proxy forces have engaged in a series of retaliatory
actions: attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, downing an
American drone in international waters, cruise missile attacks against
Saudi oil plants, and rocket attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Secretary of State Pompeo claimed, ``The world is a much safer place,
and I can assure you, Americans in the region are much safer after the
demise of Qasem Soleimani.''
And yet, in the wake of Soleimani's killing, the State Department has
urged Americans to leave Iraq immediately whether by air or by land,
and put Americans in the region on high alert.
Two years ago, I warned that we were sleepwalking into an armed
conflict. That the hidden scandal of the Iraq War--the manipulation of
intelligence to support a predetermined
[[Page H99]]
outcome--was now an overt political strategy to undermine the Iran
nuclear deal.
I fear now that these steps have brought us to the brink of war with
Iran.
According to Pompeo, ``this was an intelligence-based assessment that
drove our decision-making process.''
Yet, when asked about the imminent threat facing Americans from
Soleimani, Pompeo pointed to a previous attack in Iraq that killed an
American contractor and injured four servicemembers, not a new,
imminent threat.
Yesterday, the Trump Administration offered a sophomoric and utterly
unconvincing briefing to members of Congress on the strike's rationale.
President Trump's decision to assassinate Soleimani was provocative
and disproportionate and has endangered American lives and the security
of the region.
We don't need another war. Peace demands action now.
That is why Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to
decide when and where the United States goes to war.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that
``Congress shall have power . . . to declare war . . . and to raise and
support armies'' and other armed forces.
And today the House of Representatives will make clear that Congress
has not authorized President Trump to go to war with Iran.
Neither the 2001 nor the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military
Force (AUMF) authorize the President to attack Iran or its senior
officials.
I urge my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to support this
war powers resolution, and reclaim our solemn constitutional duty to
determine when the United States puts our uniformed men and women in
harm's way.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
This resolution is insincere and unserious. If my colleagues on the
other side really want to limit the President's ability to defend the
United States, then they ought to take the vote and limit him and stand
for that vote.
Now, if you are not familiar with terrorist Soleimani, let me just
acquaint you.
His reign of terror for Americans started with 241 marines in Beirut,
Lebanon. He and his organization continued on to the Khobar Towers,
hundreds and hundreds of Americans dead by IEDs and thousands maimed. A
servicemember from Pennsylvania incinerated--incinerated--in the
vehicle that he was in.
Thank you terrorist Soleimani.
The President does not desire war with Iran or anyone else, but Iran
has been fighting us since 1979.
I have got a news flash for everybody: They have been at war with the
United States since they punched us in the face in 1979.
Washington has been appeasing Iran, and the policy of appeasement has
been getting Americans killed since 1979.
542, that is the number of drone attacks under the Obama
administration in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan.
Oh, by the way, not the theatre of war for the United States. Not a
peep, Madam Speaker, not a peep from the other side.
The terrorist state of Iran cannot continue killing Americans and
cannot have a nuclear bomb. Madam Speaker, it is time to stand up for
America and Americans, including this President.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), a longtime valued member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, this resolution imposes extraordinary
restrictions on this President, an extraordinary President who needs
extraordinary restrictions.
This is best exemplified by the President's gratuitous comment that
he would hit cultural sites in Iran. Not only is that a war crime, but
it is a mistake because it drives the Iranian people toward the regime
while alienating our European allies whose support for our sanctions is
critical for them to work.
The minority leader came to this floor and said Democrats were dupes
of the Islamic Republic. I will compare my record of efforts against
the Islamic Republic of Iran with those of any other Member.
You could argue whether Soleimani's death makes us safer or not over
the next few months. We have removed a terrorist mastermind from the
battlefield, but we have inspired the other terrorists.
The real issue is the effect on Iran's program. That program is more
robust today than it was a week ago, as Iran has employed more
centrifuges and is building a larger stockpile, all without our
European friends, who are still in the JCPOA taking any action against
Iran.
There was no policy process on the golf course where the President
made this decision. He heard not from a single expert on Iranian
politics, religion, or the economy.
Our maximum pressure campaign is designed to put such pressure on the
Iranian people that they choose not to endure it, but demand that the
nuclear program be scaled back or ended, or that the regime that has
that program be swept away.
This assassination undercuts that effort by building support for the
regime and its nuclear program with most of the Iranian people by
making Soleimani a martyr in front of a Shiite population, a Shiite
religion that lionizes martyrdom, we increase the likelihood of an
Iranian nuclear weapon.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlemen
from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. I rise in total support of the decision to remove Qasem
Soleimani.
I have heard the use of the word ``disproportionate'' from the
Speaker. I have heard it here today on the House floor, and it is just
a shocking word to be used to describe what took place. It makes me ask
the question: At what point is it proportionate to take out a
designated terrorist who kills 600 U.S. troops, wounds thousands of
others, kills and wounds troops recently, and his proxies attack a U.S.
Embassy?
If anyone has any doubt as to what Qasem Soleimani was doing in Iraq
at the time we took him out, you can look at the IRGC's own words. The
IRGC put out a statement saying that Soleimani and companions were on
their way to ``plan a confrontation against the new scheme of the
Americans to rebuild Daesh and the Takfiri groups in order to again
disrupt Iraq's security.''
Who needs an intelligence briefing to determine that this is totally
legitimate?
On behalf of all of those Gold Star families and all the Blue Star
families, of anyone who is deployed now, anyone who is in harm's way,
if you need proof, go to Walter Reed. If you need proof, sit down with
some of these Gold Star families who lost their sons, their daughters,
their fathers, their mothers, their brothers, and their sisters because
of this designated foreign terrorist running a designated foreign
terrorist organization, who was sanctioned by the United States, by EU,
and by the United Nations.
I say good riddance.
Why are we having this debate? We should be coming together, not as
Republicans first, not as Democrats first. We should be coming together
as Americans first and voting this down.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this resolution sponsored by my good friend from Michigan,
Congresswoman Slotkin.
The Trump administration's foreign policy failures have brought us to
the brink of war. The administration has provided no evidence to
demonstrate what imminent threat made Qasem Soleimani's assassination
and the perilous, predictable fallout necessary. But they have
demonstrated a shocking dismissiveness as to what is at stake.
On the threat of retaliation from Iran, Secretary Pompeo said it may
be that there is a little noise here in the interim. President Trump
said, if it happens, it happens.
To the parents who are worried sick about their kids serving in the
Middle East, it isn't a little noise. Their children's lives are at
stake. Those stakes make today's vote necessary.
The question before us is simple. Can we let this President drag us
into another war that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars and, most
importantly,
[[Page H100]]
American lives? Will we at long last stand up and fulfill our
constitutional duty to make decisions on war and peace?
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Democrats' dangerous resolution to undermine our national defense and
allow unchecked Iranian aggression against the United States and our
allies.
This resolution intends to cripple our ability to protect American
soldiers serving in the Middle East and attempts to forbid the use of
force against Iran, even if they are attacking Americans.
I am shocked and saddened by the partisanship of this Chamber. I was
proud when former President Obama succeeded in his decision to kill
Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. I am proud that President Trump ended
Qasem Soleimani's brutal reign of terror that killed and maimed
countless Americans and coalition forces and threatened many more to
come.
But, instead of uniting behind the President's defensive position to
strike one of the world's most powerful terrorists who was organizing
attacks against Americans in Iraq, instead, many Democrats are arguing
that the American President himself is guilty of aggression and
escalation. This, Madam Speaker, is unconscionable.
These are pictures from the Military Times showing the assault and
the burning of our Embassy in Baghdad.
I agree with the President that attacking Americans is never
acceptable and Iran should be held to account. When American lives hang
in the balance, Article II of the Constitution empowers the President
to use force to protect and defend our country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious,
partisan farce.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, the chair of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy,
and the Environment.
Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, today we debate much more than the words
on parchment that define our congressional responsibility.
Long before I knew this legal responsibility, I learned the moral
responsibility inherent to what must be the most sober and deliberate
decision we can humanly muster.
As a young boy, indelibly etched in my mind is the conversation with
my grandmother the day she pulled a box out from underneath her bed,
reverently handing me the medals and final belongings of my uncle who
was killed in action and telling me about her lost son. I wondered then
what was so important to justify such a loss and what my uncle must
have been thinking about.
That day carried with me as I traveled to Iraq as a newly elected
Congressman to visit our troops during a time of war. I remember having
a conversation with a young marine. I asked him his personal thoughts
about the goals of the war, what he thought, did he think it was
justified. He told me: ``With all due respect, sir, that is your job.
My job is to serve.''
He was right. It is our job. That is why we are debating this, and
that is why I am supporting this resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the distinguished Republican Conference chair.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, the measure before us is an
unconstitutional political stunt meant to undermine the President of
the United States. It will not become law, but it will embolden Iran.
The Speaker and my colleagues who support this resolution ought to
admit to the American people what they are doing, that is, undermining
United States defense policy towards Iran.
Qasem Soleimani, the lead architect and overseer of Iran's web of
terror is dead. This terrorist was responsible for the deaths of
hundreds of American servicemembers, the killing of an American citizen
in Iraq just 2 weeks ago, and the recent assaults against our Embassy
in Baghdad. He was engaged in planning for further deadly attacks.
But the Democrats in this body are so consumed by their hatred of
President Trump that they will not even stand with him in support of
the killing of the world's deadliest terrorist.
{time} 1530
Instead, they have suggested a moral equivalence between the United
States and Iran. The Speaker of the House even blamed America,
describing the killing of Soleimani as ``an unnecessary provocation.''
Madam Speaker, what is a provocation is the introduction of this
resolution, which shows doubt about American resolve. It makes war
more, not less likely.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand united as Americans--to
put partisan stunts aside--and to oppose this dangerous resolution.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, this administration says starving the
Iranian economy is in defense of human rights, when it is an abuse of
them; and that their withdrawal from the nuclear deal was a
demonstration of American leadership, when it was an abandonment of it.
Escalation is deescalation, and war is peace.
In fact, they are asking us to deny reality. The reality is that
families of American soldiers and diplomats are being kept awake at
night worrying.
The Iraqi people who suffered decades of unjust war are now unjustly
suffering as their country becomes a battleground in a proxy war.
The Iranian people have suffered because of maximum pressure and will
suffer because of this escalation.
John Quincy Adams said:
America goes not abroad in search of monsters. America's
glory is not dominion, but liberty.
This administration has gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
May God show us the way to freedom, independence, and peace.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, make no mistake, this resolution is about
the killing of Soleimani. He was a terrorist, no different than al-
Baghdadi, then al-Zarqawi, then Osama bin Laden, then Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed. He was the head of a designated terrorist organization no
different than ISIS or al-Qaida.
He was responsible for the deaths of our men and women--and I know
most in here haven't seen or smelled or touched that kind of death, but
let me tell you about it. They were burned alive inside of their
Humvees. Their lungs were scorched by the flames of the explosions.
The vehicle fragments were blown into their skulls. Some of them were
paralyzed. Some of them had their arms blown off. Some of them had
their legs blown off. Some of them will never see again. Some of them
will never be recognized again by those who knew them previously.
Each and every one of them, they are the credible explanation for
deleting this terrorist target from our world.
And no doubt, it is dangerous to take out a terrorist target, but a
coward is somebody who lacks the courage to endure danger. This is the
fundamental difference in voting ``yes'' or ``no'' here.
If you vote ``no,'' you understand that we would be justified to kill
100 Soleimanis for just one of our heroes who have been killed by him.
The danger would be worth it.
For those who vote ``yes,'' they see that he has killed hundreds of
our servicemembers but can still not find the justification to kill him
because, unlike our fallen heroes, they lack the courage to endure
danger.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Trone), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. TRONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to an
unnecessary war with Iran in support of this resolution.
Today, the question before us is: Are the American people more safe
or less safe after the killing of Qasem Soleimani?
[[Page H101]]
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have significant
concerns about the administration's inability to answer this question
and communicate a coherent strategy to avoid war and keep us safe.
The American people have seen no evidence that killing Soleimani was
a result of an imminent threat; no evidence of a discernible political
plan for our policy toward Iran moving forward.
Questions of war and peace are the most fundamental of the issues
that come before this Congress. They require deliberate and thoughtful
decisionmaking. This action by the administration was not that.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I never thought that I would hear on this House floor an apology to
the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified,
taking out a terrorist. I cannot believe it.
And, yet, we just heard that on this House floor. We have a gentleman
who gave his legs in service to this country and, yet, we are
apologizing to the Iranians with a nonbinding resolution that is
nothing more than a press release, Madam Speaker. It has no effect. It
doesn't do anything. In fact, the Supreme Court says that. They know
that.
All they are doing is trying to get a press release to keep them from
having a primary opponent. This is a sad, sad day. And, yet, here we
are, having another speech to try to take on the President of the
United States for actually taking out a terrorist.
I would ask my colleagues opposite: How many Americans does a
terrorist have to kill before they join with us? Is 600 not enough?
Does it have to be 1,000, 10,000, a million? At some point we have to
stand up and let the long arm of justice go in and take out these
terrorists.
I am here to tell you today that this nonbinding resolution, indeed,
they want to talk about their constitutional requirement, well, check
with the Supreme Court. In 1983, they ruled that this has no effect. At
least our Senators opposite, they know that. It has to be a joint
resolution.
And, yet, what is this vehicle normally designed for? For Soap Box
Derbies. Well, at least that accomplishes something. All this does is
emboldens our enemies to suggest that the American people are divided.
But I am here to tell you that we are not divided. We are a safer
country because of the actions of this President, the decisive actions
of this President and our military.
More important than that, this War Powers Act that got passed, it was
a message that came out of a difficult time. But I want the message to
be clear today. We are standing behind our military men and women. We
have their back, and we will not yield.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, let me remind my friend that we, too,
cherish our military and also have their backs.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and
Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of this resolution. Congress has constitutional authority when
it comes to one of the most important decisions any of us can make: to
send our brave men and women of the Armed Forces into harm's way in
service of our country.
Recent events demonstrate just how important this congressional role
is. When the President decided to strike a high-level Iranian official,
he made a decision that was provocative in the strongest sense of the
word. He did that without any meaningful congressional consultation.
The information that we have received is woefully insufficient,
including the notification and the briefing provided by senior
officials yesterday.
Congress and the American people have no assurance that the President
is acting as part of a well-thought-out strategy that makes Americans
safer rather than sets us on a war path.
I am deeply opposed to an unauthorized war with Iran. That is why I
support this resolution, which reiterates that only Congress can
declare war and that we have not done so here.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this dangerous resolution.
Iran has been at war with us for 40 years. They held Americans hostage
in Tehran. They murdered our marines in Beirut. They killed hundreds,
if not thousands, of American servicemembers in Iraq.
In recent months, Iran shot down a U.S. drone, they killed an
American citizen, and they organized an attack on our embassy.
So let's be clear: General Soleimani was the mastermind behind these
attacks. Soleimani was in Iraq claiming imminent attacks on our
servicemembers, our diplomats, and our Iraqi allies.
Soleimani was an enemy combatant and a lawful target. As a Navy JAG,
I prosecuted terrorists in Iraq. I was actually stationed right across
from our embassy in Baghdad, and I witnessed these threats on our Armed
Forces. So I applaud President Trump, I applaud our warfighters, and I
applaud our intelligence community for reaching an incredible outcome
against Iran.
Soleimani's death was a win for America, for freedom, and for peace.
In supporting this resolution, Democrats are choosing to stand with
their far-left radical base rather than standing up against Iran.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to
declare war.
This was not a matter of great controversy among the Founders,
because going to war is the most portentous decision that a nation can
make. And in our democracy, it is a decision to be undertaken by the
people through the Congress, and not by one person.
We are all enormously grateful that no U.S. personnel were killed in
Iran's missile strikes, and I hope that the President will take
advantage of the momentary calm to deescalate the situation.
But we cannot assume peace will hold indefinitely because of the
impulsive actions of this President which have so often brought us to
the brink of war.
Qasem Soleimani was a malign force responsible for the death of many
Americans, but after the briefings I have received, I have no
confidence that there is some broad strategy at work, or that the
policies of the President are doing anything but increasing the dangers
to the American people.
That is a recipe for disaster, one which increases the likelihood of
stumbling into a war that the American people do not want and Congress
has not authorized.
The resolution before the House today is a step toward reasserting
our constitutional duty to rein in a President whose unilateral actions
have isolated us from our allies, increased the risk of a nuclear-armed
Iran, and made us less safe.
Finally, I hope the vote today is the first of a broader reassertion
of Congress' war powers including the sunset or repeal of the 2001 and
2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force which have been stretched
beyond recognition.
It is past time for Congress to do our job and not simply write the
executive a blank check. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins).
Mr. WATKINS. Madam Speaker, I spent somewhere around 8\1/2\ years in
conflict environments and post-conflict environments between Iraq and
Afghanistan. And all that time I knew many people who suffered at the
hands of Qasem Soleimani.
One in particular takes me back to 2006 or 2007. I was smoking and
joking at the embassy in Baghdad. I was doing so with a friend--really
a brother, a West Point classmate--who shortly thereafter went out on a
mission and was ultimately killed in a complex attack perpetrated by
Qasem Soleimani.
[[Page H102]]
I understand that action leads to risk, but inaction leads to more
risk in the long run. And when searching for this divine strategy, look
to what tactical operators know to be true, and that is, when we go
throughout our work on the ground with the assault rifle in one hand, a
sat phone in the other, we need to know that should anything happen to
us, our President is going to have the freedom to rain fire down upon
our enemies, and I am thankful for that.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), an esteemed member the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
{time} 1545
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
Without a coherent strategy, such actions as the recent ones that
occurred in Iraq present a dangerous move toward the United States'
engaging in a war that the American people do not want.
Today, we move to reclaim power that the executive branch has tried
to usurp from Congress. We assert our constitutional authority to
determine if the country ought to go to war, and we send a message loud
and clear that we do not want to go to war.
We will not engage in reckless hostilities to endanger American
lives, American interests, and our American values without fully
evaluating imminent threat. We must continue to assert that, without
new authorizations from Congress, this administration cannot engage in
offensive military actions. That is what our Framers intended.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hurd), who is a former CIA officer.
Mr. HURD of Texas. Madam Speaker, right now is not the time for a
partisan exercise that could be used as propaganda by the ayatollahs.
Instead, Congress should be united in condemning a regime that has been
attacking America and our allies for 40 years.
Qasem Soleimani was the head of the most dangerous and well-armed
terrorist organization in the world, and his death has removed a major
terrorist leader off the battlefield. This decision followed repeated
rocket attacks by Iranian proxies on American forces and an attempt to
storm our embassy in Baghdad.
This decision was based on intelligence that our Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff has described as compelling, imminent, and very
clear, as Soleimani was planning attacks against our troops. This is an
assessment with which I concur.
No one wants another war in the Middle East. Instead of tying the
hands of our military, we should be sending a strong message to the
Iranian regime that there will be consequences for their reign of
terror, and we will protect our citizens at all costs.
The Iranian regime has killed over 600 American troops in Iraq. They
have killed over 1,500 of their own people for peacefully protesting.
They have lied to the world about their nuclear arsenal.
Appeasing them will only make future conflict and bloodshed more
likely. That is why I wish today, instead of this partisan exercise,
that we were sending to the Government of Iran a clearer message that
no elected official in America is supportive of its behavior.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, President Bush's invasion of Iraq was the
first foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States based
on fake intelligence, and President Trump took us to the brink of war
with Iran with an impulsive act at the end of last week that would be
even more disastrous than the war with Iraq, which is still
reverberating throughout the region.
Some on that side say: Oh, you are not with the troops; you are
apologizing.
No, we are not. We are reasserting the constitutional duty that we
are sworn to in this House of Representatives. Congress and only
Congress can declare war. Once we have declared war, then the President
of the United States as Commander in Chief can conduct it, as much as
this gentleman could.
This is just a step. We need to repeal the Authorization for Use of
Military Force against Iraq based on fake intelligence because that was
his lawyer's rationalization of why they could do this in Iraq, a
sovereign nation, without their permission.
We also have to reform the War Powers Act because the War Powers Act
itself does not reflect our constitutional authority.
Finally, we have to pass an amendment to prohibit a hostile action
against Iran without authority from Congress.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. BACON. Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution that is designed
to embarrass our President in front of the world and, in reality, gives
comfort to Iran's leadership. It weakens America and emboldens our
enemies.
This resolution is not needed. The War Powers Act is still in effect,
and the President is not conducting combat operations against Iran. He
wants deescalation; he does not want war.
He is not doing what President Obama did in Libya. What the President
did was a onetime defensive operation, when he targeted General
Soleimani.
Let us be clear: Soleimani murdered 609 Americans in Iraq. His
proxies attacked our embassy, and the Quds Force he commanded shed
blood across the world. He even attempted terrorism right here in
Washington, D.C. He was the number one threat to Israel, and he was
anti-Semitism personified.
I knew who Soleimani was when I was in Iraq. We were targeted by
rockets every single day from Iranian proxies trained in, funded by,
and armed by Iran and sometimes led by Iranian commanders, and fellow
Americans died.
The targeting of Soleimani is justice for the 609 families who had a
son or daughter murdered by this guy and the thousands missing an arm
or a leg because of his savagery.
In bringing up this resolution, the Speaker said that our targeting
of Soleimani was disproportionate. It is disgusting. This guy killed
609 Americans in Iraq alone. He was the mastermind.
Does it take 100 more? 200 more? 300 more? It is vile.
Our strike was also defensive. General Milley said that he saw some
of the best intelligence he has ever seen and that it clearly showed
Soleimani was in Baghdad, planning an imminent attack on Americans. To
deny this is to call General Milley a liar.
This resolution weakens America and gives hope to the Ayatollah that
we don't have the resolve to stand up to these attacks. A house divided
will not stand. I pray wise leadership prevails and that we unify to
oppose Iranian terror that murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), who has worked very hard on these issues for many
years.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding and also for his tremendous leadership.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83. This
critical resolution helps put a check on this administration's reckless
and irrational unauthorized military actions against Iran.
The American people do not want, and we cannot allow, another
unnecessary war of choice in the Middle East. This resolution is an
important step in our efforts to prevent that from happening. This will
restore our constitutional duty over military action.
Also, we must take up my bill, H.R. 2456, to repeal the 2002 AUMF and
Congressman Khanna's bill to prohibit any funds for a war with Iran,
absent an explicit authorization. My 2002 AUMF amendment was included
with bipartisan support in the House and passed in the 2020 NDAA bill,
but it was stripped by Republicans from the final bill. Now, I know
why.
Madam Speaker, this administration has falsely claimed that the 2002
AUMF could be used as a congressional authorization to attack Iran,
which is completely outrageous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
[[Page H103]]
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15
seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me be clear: U.S. military
deployment and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF
officially concluded in 2011. Maintaining this authorization is not
only dangerous, but it is irresponsible.
Madam Speaker, it is past time to return to diplomacy and end these
endless wars, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on H. Con. Res. 83.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), who is a Marine veteran of the Persian
Gulf war and a current member of the Mississippi National Guard.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
resolution.
Let's be clear with the American people: Democrats wrote this bill
before being briefed by senior intelligence officials on the strike
that eliminated Soleimani, a well-known terrorist.
At the end of the day, we all know that this man was responsible for
the death of thousands of individuals, including over 600 American
servicemembers. President Trump was absolutely right to respond and
acted within his constitutional authority to protect American citizens.
He owes no one an apology. Feelings can be healed, but dead Americans
cannot be resurrected.
My question for those on the other side of the aisle who are hellbent
on undermining this President over political differences is: How many
more Americans did you want to die before President Trump acted?
Let's reflect. President Obama authorized over 540 drone strikes,
killing over 3,700 people and more than 320 civilians. Not a single one
was authorized by Congress.
As a veteran and member of our United States military, I am ashamed
of the behavior I am witnessing now. Our military deserves better, and
so do the American people. During a time when our country should unite
behind our Commander in Chief, this resolution turns us against
ourselves. I support our men and women in uniform and hope my
colleagues on the left will come to their senses to do the same.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), who is a distinguished member of the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel for
his leadership.
I previously served in Active Duty in the United States military, and
if we are going to put our troops in harm's way, we better have a
strategy. Unfortunately, we don't have a strategy from the Trump
administration. We just have reckless and impulsive decisionmaking by
the President.
Let me just ask a very simple question: What are our goals with Iran?
Is it to get them to come back to the negotiating table on the
nuclear program? Well, we are further away from that goal now because
they have announced they are no longer going to abide by limits on the
nuclear program.
Is the goal to get the regime to collapse? We are further from that
goal, too, because the Iranian people who previously were protesting
their government are rallying behind their leadership.
Or is the goal to work with our allies to contain Iran? Well, we are
further away from that goal, too, because the Iraqi parliament just
voted to kick us out of their country.
Madam Speaker, we are less safe than we were a week ago. Vote ``yes''
on this bipartisan resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, many of the senior leadership on the other
side of the aisle voted for the 2002 AUMF on Iraq, including the
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the majority leader, and the
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The AUMF in 2002 gave this President every bit of authority he needed
to go after a terrorist in Iraq. In fact, the terrorist that he killed,
Soleimani, was designated under Barack Obama Executive Order No. 13224
as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in 2011.
Where was the outrage when President Obama was using the same AUMF as
justification for dropping bombs in countries like Yemen or Syria, or
violating the sovereign airspace of Pakistan, which we all agreed with,
but violated the airspace of Pakistan to go in and kill Osama bin
Laden?
We were fine with that. This is a Specially Designated Global
Terrorist who deserved death after he was responsible for 600-plus
American deaths, atrocious and abysmal acts.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, there are two times we are going to be
called to account for our votes here in Congress. One is at our next
election; the other is when we draw our last breath of air. I am more
concerned about the latter.
This vote isn't about supporting or opposing President Trump. I voted
for President Trump. I plan to vote for President Trump again.
This vote is about exercising our constitutional authority. More
importantly, it is about our moral obligation to decide when and where
our troops are going to be asked to give their lives.
Congress needs to do more of what we are doing here today. We need to
debate our involvement in Afghanistan, and then we need to bring our
troops home. We need to debate our involvement in Iraq, and then we
need to bring our troops home.
We certainly don't need another war. If we do go to war, it needs to
be with the blessing and the support of the people and a mission that
our soldiers can accomplish.
We do that by following the vision of our Founding Fathers: We debate
it here on the floor of the House.
That is what this resolution is about, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes.''
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who is the Republican whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. If you
look at what they are attempting to do, there has been a lot of talk
about the 2002 AUMF, Madam Speaker, and I am sure, as Congress has over
the years, we will continue to have a healthy debate over what that
proper role should be of Congress as it relates to the 2002 AUMF. But
that is not what this debate is about.
When you read the resolution, in fact, just by its own name, this is
not an act of Congress. This isn't even changing the law. So if you
want to have a sincere debate over what that power should be that
Congress gave to the executive branch, then let's have that debate. But
don't try to pass some fig leaf resolution that is only intended to try
to undermine the President in the middle of a conflict with the world's
largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran.
There is no dispute about how bad of an evil terrorist Soleimani was,
yet here you hear all of these equivocations: Oh, Soleimani was bad
person but.
Madam Speaker, how can you sit here and try to apologize for the
things that he did by saying that taking him out was wrong?
This world is a safer place with Soleimani gone. If you want to
apologize to anybody, go apologize to the families of those hundreds of
men and women in our uniform who are dead at the hands of Soleimani,
not only the people whom he had already killed but the even more
Americans whom at the very time of his death he was plotting to kill.
{time} 1600
How much is enough? At what point do we say: Take him off the face of
this planet so he can't kill more innocent people? That is what was
ultimately done.
We support President Trump in his efforts at keeping America safe,
just like we supported President Obama when he took out Osama bin
Laden, another evil terrorist who had the blood of thousands of
Americans on his hands.
If we are going to be serious about keeping this country safe,
absolutely,
[[Page H104]]
there is a role for Congress to play, but you have got to support the
efforts of your Commander in Chief to carry out his constitutional duty
which he has to keep this country safe.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership in bringing this important opportunity for
us to express our concern about the President's actions. I salute him
and the support on the other side of the aisle for this legislation.
As we know, last week, the Trump administration conducted a
provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-
level Iranian military officials, and he did so without consulting
Congress.
When I first heard from the administration, the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I said: Why did you not consult
Congress in this change in approach?
They said: Because we had to keep this close. We had to keep this
close.
You had to keep it close from the Gang of 8, the leadership of the
Congress?
We had to keep it close because we didn't want the word get out.
Well, we deserve the respect from the administration, and the
Congress deserves, by dint of the Constitution, the requirement of the
administration to consult with Congress.
We know full well, better than many in the administration, the
importance of classified information. We know that we are supposed to
support sources and methods. We also know that the consultation that
they would give to us does not enable us to divulge any information.
So who are they keeping it close from? They admitted, this
administration, they were keeping it close from the Congress of the
United States, and they did so.
Now, they did a classified presentation yesterday, which their own
party members, Republican Senators, said it was the most demeaning and
worst classified briefing that they had had. I, myself, think there is
stiff competition for that designation of ``worst presentation'' by
this administration in a classified briefing.
But all that is to say that the Constitution of the United States
calls for there to be cooperation when we decide about initiating
hostilities. Congress has the right to declare war. When do you decide
that it is war? When do you decide it is just hostilities? When does
that end? What line do you cross?
But, with the President's actions last week, he endangered our
servicemen and -women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious
risk of escalation of tensions with Iran.
This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors
they are in the world. I, from my intelligence background, know that
Soleimani was somebody whom we do not mourn the loss of. He did very
evil things in the world. But we also know that when we take an action,
we have to understand the ramifications of it.
Others could have taken Soleimani out. Israel could have taken
Soleimani out, but they didn't. They didn't.
So, that has happened. That is where it is. As we go forward, it is
really important for us to address the parameters of the War Powers
Act, and that is what we are doing here today.
The Members of Congress have serious and urgent concerns about the
administration's decision to engage--I use the term ``decision''
loosely--to engage in hostilities against Iran, and it is about a lack
of strategy. What is the strategy to move forward?
Again, they did not consult with Congress. They gave a presentation
that, by their own side of the aisle, has been described as demeaning
and the worst. And then they tell Members to go read the classified
documents.
Classified? Why are these documents classified? Why can't the
American people know?
We understand redactions of sources and methods and the rest, but, if
you read that document, you would know there is no reason for it to be
classified; and without going into any substantive matters of what
happened yesterday in the classified briefing, it is fair to say that
Members were told to go read other documents which are redacted and, in
many cases, classified unnecessarily.
Our concerns were not addressed by the President's insufficient War
Powers authorization, which was classified in its entirety, leaving the
Congress and the public in the dark about our national security, and
our concerns were not addressed by the administration's briefing
yesterday.
Today, to honor our duty to keep the American people safe--that is
our first responsibility, to protect and defend; we must keep the
American people safe--the House will pass a War Powers Resolution to
limit the President's military actions regarding Iran.
Congress is reasserting our long-established oversight
responsibilities as we mandate that, if no further Congressional action
is taken, the administration's military hostilities with regard to Iran
must end.
We salute Congresswoman Slotkin for her leadership in this
resolution. She is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst
specializing in Shiite militias, who served multiple tours in the
region under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
It is important to know, because I heard the distinguished whip on
the other side of the aisle ask: How come it is just a concurrent
resolution? It is because, under the War Powers Act, that is one of the
options that is provided. You can do a joint resolution, House
resolution, or you can do a concurrent resolution.
The value and the beauty and the exquisite nature of a concurrent
resolution is that it does not have to be signed by the President of
the United States. The Congress of the United States, in its full power
and full voice, can speak in a united way about what the War Powers Act
should look like, and that should count for something to our colleagues
who serve in the Congress of the United States. So, under the authority
of the War Powers Act that gives us this option, we take this
opportunity to do so.
I implore the administration to work with Congress to advance
immediate, effective, deescalatory strategy that prevents further
violence.
I also salute this resolution because it does give opportunity for
the administration to act under certain circumstances which are part of
the War Powers Act.
Madam Speaker, in December, a group of us, in a bipartisan way,
traveled to Belgium and Luxembourg to observe the 75th anniversary of
the Battle of the Bulge and who served in that battle. One of our
Members, Annie Kuster, her father served in that, and she has letters
from him at that time.
Other Members, on both sides of the aisle--Mr. Seth Moulton, his
grandfather served in the Battle of the Bulge--also on the Republican
side of the aisle, the House and in the Senate.
And why I bring it up is this. That Battle of the Bulge was a
decisive battle in World War II. It was a surprise attack, really, by
the Germans. It was a bloody battle. We lost 19,000 Americans--19,000
Americans--in that Battle of the Bulge.
On the days that we were there, when I was listening to the
description of it from the veterans who served, it sounded almost like
Washington crossing the Delaware, because it was December, as it was in
the United States in the beginning of our fight for independence.
Supplies were insufficient. The camouflage for snow was not adequate.
Our veterans, our then men in uniform were exposed--nurses, too. And it
was a triumph that was very decisive in World War II.
And why I bring it up is because, when there was the observance of
it--it was parts of 3 days we were there for it. But at the close of
it, there was a ceremony that included a speech by the King of Belgium,
the Grand Duke of Luxembourg--two of the places where this all took
place--and the President of Germany, who spoke beautifully about
Germany now, saying: When you freed Luxembourg and Belgium, you also
freed the Germans.
What a beautiful statement.
But the close of it was from a veteran who served in the Battle of
the Bulge, in his nineties. He was a teenager in the war. We saw the
foxholes in which they fought, they lost their comrades in arms. He
talked about the brotherhood, and he talked about allies, and he talked
about the fight. At the end of the speech, the veteran said: I don't
[[Page H105]]
know if I should say this, but I will. My message to all of you is pray
for peace.
Pray for peace.
That is what we should be doing is moving toward peace, not
escalation of hostilities where that can be avoided. Not because we
believe that the other side has good motivations or that Soleimani was
not a bad person.
It is not because of what they are; it is because of who we are as
Americans: a country that is committed to peace and security and
prepared to protect and defend, as President Kennedy said, fight any
fight, fight any foe, pay any price to keep the American people safe,
but to not be frivolous and cavalier about how we decide to show
strength when it really is more of an escalation than a deescalation.
So it is sad because you would think that, any time we would engage
in such an important change in approach, we would be working together,
consulting together, respecting the approach that each side takes to
all of this and, hopefully, just be on one side of it all.
So I think this is very important. It doesn't do everything, and it
is said: Well, it doesn't do this; it doesn't do that.
We should never be judging legislation, necessarily, for what it
doesn't do, but respecting it for what it does do, and what this does
is very important for the security of our country.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland
Security.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this brazen political
stunt.
Qasem Soleimani was a vicious terrorist who built a cult following on
the backs of dead Americans. He armed Hezbollah, KH, and other Iranian
proxies who killed American troops and our allies throughout the Middle
East. The Homeland Security and Defense Departments have kept close
watch on his terror campaigns for years.
Soleimani was not visiting Baghdad because it was a great holiday
destination. He was there to meet the leader of a terrorist group that
killed an American just days before.
Our President used the law and his constitutional authority as
Commander in Chief to eliminate this terrorist mastermind before he
could kill again.
Democrats immediately responded by doubting our intelligence and
dismissing the expertise of our military leaders. Now they bring this
resolution to the floor that maligns our President, undermines our
national security, and makes a martyr of a man who killed nearly 600
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
{time} 1615
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time.
Speaking out against the Vietnam War in 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. implored: ``We must move past indecision to action. We must find
new ways to speak for peace. If we do not act, we shall surely be
dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved
for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality,
and strength without sight.''
Dr. King's words are just as apropos today. President Trump, in
ordering a significant military strike, without seeking authorization,
or even consultation with Congress, has brought us to the brink of war.
The Constitution of this great country gives the solemn power to
declare war to the people's representatives in Congress, not one person
in the White House, whoever that might be.
With this resolution, Congress is acting to uphold our constitutional
responsibility. If the President believes military action against Iran
is warranted, this resolution, and the Constitution, require him to
make the case to Congress and receive authorization.
Mr. Speaker, I truly regret that we find ourselves in the position we
are today. The Trump administration's policy toward Iran, abandoning
the nuclear deal rather than building on it, while escalating tensions
instead, is an unwise application of American power, might, and
strength.
The strike against General Soleimani, a bad man who no American
mourns, drags us closer to another long, dark, and shameful corridor to
an unnecessary war.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is clear that only
Congress can start a war, but only the President can wage it. Congress
started this war with the AUMF in 2002. It is still in effect.
The Founders didn't want one individual getting us into a war; but
once in it, they didn't want 535 squabbling prima donnas second-
guessing every decision on the battlefield.
President Trump needed no other reason to order the attack that
killed Soleimani in Iraq, beyond the simple fact that he was acting as
an enemy combatant against U.S. forces in a war zone in which the
Congress had authorized the President to take military action.
I happen to believe the AUMF was a colossal mistake, but this
resolution doesn't correct that mistake. It compounds it by
deliberately undermining the position of the United States Government
and the Armed Forces that we sent to Iraq at a perilous moment, which
makes it not only unconstitutional, but disgraceful.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Castro), the vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the
chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, the American
people have been unwillingly taken to the brink of war at the direction
of this administration.
Through reckless actions, the White House has unified the Iranian
public, alienated our partners in Iraq and Europe, undermined the fight
against ISIS, and left the United States more isolated than before; all
in just 1 week, and without the consent of this Congress.
This is a grave and serious moment in our country.
Two days ago, our brave men and women in uniform came under fire from
22 Iranian missiles, in harm's way because of their Commander in Chief.
Every American owes a debt of gratitude to our military for its
courage and sacrifice. For that reason, a decision that risks troops'
well-being must only be made thoughtfully and with the informed consent
of the public and this Congress.
As a Member of Congress, my biggest priority is to protect the safety
of the American people, at home and abroad. This can only be done by
defending Congress' constitutional authority over declaring war.
For that reason, I urge us to support this resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
Mr. ABRAHAM. Major Ronald Culver, Jr., Corporal Justin Mixon,
Sergeant Joseph Richard, III, Sergeant Terrell Gilmore, Staff Sergeant
Jarred Fontenot, Corporal William Crouch, Private Mark Graham, Staff
Sergeant Ronnie Sanders, Staff Sergeant Jacob McMillan, Sergeant Joshua
Madden, Sergeant Jay Gauthreaux, Private Joshua Burrows, Corporal
Joseph Dumas, Lance Corporal Jon Bowman, Lance Corporal John Hale,
Sergeant Matthew Vosbein, Sergeant First Class Terry Wallace, Sergeant
Brandon Teeters, Lance Corporal Derrick Cothran, Staff Sergeant Bryan
Lewis, Sergeant Julia Atkins, Sergeant Willard Partridge, Corporal
David Stewart.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Sergeant David Murray, First Sergeant Michael Bordelon,
Sergeant Nicholas Olivier, Sergeant Seth Trahan, Staff Sergeant
Jonathan Reed, Sergeant Christopher Ramsey, Sergeant Michael Evans,
Sergeant Robert Sweeney, Staff Sergeant William Manuel.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), a valued
[[Page H106]]
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before
us today.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: ``Congress shall
have the power to declare war.'' The Founders were unequivocal. Only
Congress has the power to authorize acts of war.
Today, we bring forth this resolution to honor our Founding Fathers'
vision for our country, for our government, one whose very survival
hinges on the separation of powers and each branch's respect for the
others' authority.
At this moment we, as a Congress, have an opportunity to pursue de-
escalatory actions that protect the lives of our Armed Forces,
diplomats, and civilians. I implore the President and this
administration to work with this Congress in this effort.
Today marks this first step. We must aggressively pursue diplomacy so
that no lives are lost. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to join in that pursuit.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I urge a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a
President who carried out his oath of office.
I am afraid the reason we are here today, again, is out of pure
opposition to this President, and not the serious national security
issues at hand.
Make no mistake; terrorist Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of
hundreds of Americans, including those that my friend and colleague,
Ralph Abraham, just read. Hundreds of Americans; and he was plotting to
kill many more.
The President used his full legal authority to take defensive action
and eliminate this brutal terrorist. The world is safer today because
of it.
In times like these, we need to come together as a country and stand
behind our men and women in uniform. Whoever occupies the White House
should have the ability to direct and address threats and prevent
American bloodshed.
Just 48 hours ago, Iran attacked U.S. military personnel; and yet, we
are hastily voting on this partisan resolution that will weaken
national security.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this political show
resolution.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in support of the War Powers Resolution as an original cosponsor.
This is a grave and pivotal moment in American history, and we must be
greatly concerned for the security of our troops and the safety of the
American people.
We live in an era of hybrid warfare and high-intensity reaction. One
reckless military strike can incentivize countermeasures, not just in
the immediate region, but thousands of miles away by Iran's proxies.
Wise use of force matters.
Without congressional authorization, and in defiance of our
Constitution, this President ordered an unprecedented strike on Iran's
top generals.
There is no doubt Soleimani was a fierce enemy of liberty. However,
this Lone Ranger attack by the President risks all-out war, greater
instability in Iraq and Iran, losing the edge we have gained at such
great cost; and some of those names have been put on the Record today.
We must protect against further attacks on our servicemembers and
attacks on U.S. assets, wherever they might exist.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an
additional 15 seconds.
Ms. KAPTUR. To those ends, the American people deserve full
transparency. The President must take steps to de-escalate this highly
volatile situation in a most ungovernable part of the world.
Let us rigorously pursue, with our allies, turning back Iran's
development of nuclear weapons. And let us do all we can to uphold our
beloved Constitution, put raging bulls back in their cages, and make
the American people safer.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and fellow Texan,
Ranking Member McCaul, for his strong leadership.
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to weaponize impeachment to discredit
the President. It is a whole other thing to handcuff our Commander in
Chief and jeopardize the safety of our soldiers and prevent them from
defending themselves.
Thankfully, this is a partisan resolution that is going nowhere. But
it is also disturbing insight into the naive and impotent ideology of
appeasement that invited Russia into Syria, created ISIS in Iraq, and
emboldened Iran to terrorize and brutally murder throughout the Middle
East.
This is not a resolution. This is a retreat, a de facto apology. But
for what? For ridding the world of a brutal terrorist with American
blood on his hands?
If this resolution were to become law, Mr. Speaker, it would be a
death warrant, and not for the worst of terrorists, but for the best of
Americans, our sons and daughters on the battlefield who would be left
defenseless, sitting ducks for a murderous mob of mullahs in Iran and
Iranian-backed militias throughout the region.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for Congress to exert
our authority over the questions of war and peace; and I am proud to
vote for this concurrent resolution to invoke the War Powers Act in
order to restrain this reckless President.
This vote would halt military operations and force the President to
come to Congress to authorize any further acts of war.
The President, remarkably, said: ``All is well.''
Well, Mr. President, it is not well. Iran announced that it would
withdraw from the nuclear agreement and will begin to resume its
nuclear weapons plan. The United States has been forced to stop its
actions against ISIS. Iraq is likely to expel the United States from
its country, fulfilling what has been a dream, actually, of Soleimani.
Our European allies are angry because they were not alerted, and our
actions have united the people of Iraq against us, and the people of
Iran are together now.
Mr. President, America is not safer because of what you have done.
And we must pass this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
{time} 1630
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let us hope that demagoguery will not play too great a part in the
consideration of this piece of legislation. I just heard one of my
colleagues on the other side mischaracterize the position of my party
and of this resolution.
This resolution is the law. This resolution is consistent with not
only the law, the War Powers Act, but the Constitution of the United
States.
I thank Representative Slotkin for authoring this resolution, as well
as Chairman Smith, Chairman Engel, Representative Khanna,
Representative Lee, and others who have been working hard to ensure
that Congress maintains its role as a coequal branch of government when
it comes to matters of war and peace.
This President, as we have seen, has consistently treated the
legislative branch as inferior to the executive branch. Sadly, Mr.
Speaker, we have had numerous votes on this floor last year to stand up
for the coequal status of the Congress of the United States. Too often,
our Republican friends have sided with the executive department,
diminishing the authority and the position of the Congress of the
United States. This is not about this President, nor is it about
shrinking from confronting terrorism and terrorists.
Again and again, we have seen this President ignore Congress'
directives on appropriations, including by shifting money away from the
military to
[[Page H107]]
fund his costly and ineffective border wall. This President has refused
to disburse emergency funding for disaster relief that Congress
allocated to help the people of Puerto Rico and other places where
Americans are in need of help. This President withheld congressionally
appropriated funding to help Ukraine repel Russian terrorism.
After criticizing his predecessor for the use of executive orders,
President Trump has doubled down on using them to circumvent the will
of Congress and the American people.
This resolution is to say: Mr. President, obey the law, obey the
Constitution of the United States of America, which gives Congress the
sole authority to declare war.
If you read the language of the resolution, it continues to say that
we are for, certainly, defending any of our people at risk, period. The
War Powers Act provides for that. Article II of the Constitution
provides for that.
The President has ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and
testimony, directing subordinates to build a wall of obstruction unseen
in our history. It should, therefore, be no surprise that we
representatives of the 320-plus million people of America, who expect
us to be their voice in this critical issue of declaring war--and this
resolution does not prohibit in any way the President of the United
States, under his Article II powers, acting to defend our military, our
allies, and our homeland.
With the actions taken last week, the President is unilaterally
moving us toward involvement in another deadly and destabilizing war in
the Middle East.
I am glad, frankly, as we all are, that the response that came from
Iran was either ineffective or simply meant to be a message. I don't
know which.
Thankfully, however, the Congress has, under law and our
Constitution, a remedy to reassert our position as a coequal branch--as
a matter of fact, an Article I branch--and ensure, as the Founders
intended, that only the Congress, speaking on behalf of all the people,
could declare war.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 because they believed a
Democratic President, and it was a Democratic Congress that adopted the
War Powers Act, because they believed a Democratic President had
overstepped the bounds.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, determined to ensure that
no President can send our troops into war without the people's
representatives authorizing it. I suggest to my friends on both sides
of the aisle that is what the Founders intended.
We must use this tool of congressional power or, by our silence,
acquiesce to the growth of the imperial Presidency, which by the way,
has been going on for some 40 years, maybe even 50 years, irrespective
of who is President.
This is not a partisan resolution. This is a resolution consistent
with the Constitution of the United States of America, which did not
want a single person to be able to take America to war, to put our men
and women at risk.
Let us be absolutely clear: Qasem Soleimani was a dangerous purveyor
of terror and violence and a practice thereof. He was an architect of
Iranian efforts to dominate the Middle East through aggression and
fear. He has American blood on his hands, as well as the blood of our
allies.
He has met the justice he deserves. I say that notwithstanding the
fact I do not know from the information I have received whether or not,
in fact, it was absolutely essential to take his life now because of
imminent danger. Perhaps it was.
In any event, no one laments the loss of Soleimani's life, at least
in this country and by freedom-loving people throughout the world. We
are relieved that the Iranian counterstrike was limited and caused no
American or allied casualties.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents and the American people are deeply
concerned about what comes next with a possibility of further
retaliation and escalation from Iran or its proxies. There may be a
time when such action is called for, but it is this body that needs to
make that decision, the United States Senate and this body.
Iran is a dangerous enemy of freedom and a sponsor of terror. It
continues to harbor ambitions of dominance over its neighbors and to
call for the destruction of Israel. This Iranian regime is no friend
and must not be trusted.
Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. I believe
this Congress would vote to ensure that that was prohibited. This
resolution makes those facts clear. We must have a sound, long-term
strategy to deal with Iran and bring it into compliance with
international laws and norms.
The threat of military force must continue to be a part of any
strategy, along with sanctions and diplomacy, and this resolution in no
way contravenes that premise.
The best way forward is for Congress and the administration to work
together. That is what our Founders had in mind. Proper congressional
oversight and involvement will help ensure, not undermine, that the
administration adopts and pursues the best possible strategy to check
and oppose Iran's malign ambitions.
Let us not demagogue one another. There can be differences. This
resolution is brought to this floor of the House to uphold the
Constitution of the United States of America and to again urge this
President, as we have urged Democratic Presidents, to ensure that they
follow the strictures of our Constitution on behalf of the safety of
our people and the respect we have throughout the world.
We are a nation of laws. This resolution is about the laws.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the leader, and I
do not disagree with him that the President needs to come to Congress
to authorize war with Iran, but that is not what we are looking at here
today.
We do not currently have troops engaged in hostility in Iran subject
to withdrawal under the War Powers Resolution. However, if the
administration were to strike Iran directly, in my opinion, they would
need to submit a war powers notification, and they would need to
proceed with an authorized use of military force.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Spano).
Mr. SPANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McCaul for yielding.
I oppose this resolution. The Speaker claims it is a necessary
response to President Trump's ``disproportionate'' attack on ``high-
level Iranian military officials.'' Disproportionate?
Apparently, Democrats have forgotten who Qasem Soleimani was, one of
the worst perpetrators of terror in recent history. He led the
organization that founded Hezbollah, one of the most violent terrorist
groups opposing Israel. He directed his groups to kill over 600
American servicemembers in Iraq and wounded thousands more. He led a
brutal attack on peaceful protestors recently in Iran, killing over
1,000 Iranians.
A bully will not stand down unless he knows you are willing to stand
toe-to-toe with him, unless he knows there are consequences to his
actions. President Trump acted decisively in bringing down this brutal,
inhumane bully, this terrorist mastermind, to stop an imminent threat.
It was necessary to show Iran we will no longer tolerate their
aggression.
We should be united in our support for eliminating this threat and in
supporting the President's efforts to negotiate a new, more effective
Iran deal.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution so that all options
are on the table and so that we can negotiate from a position of
strength toward achieving a peaceful solution.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concurrent resolution,
which requires President Trump to immediately terminate military
operations against Iran. It is about time that Congress exercised its
war powers authority under the Constitution. I believe this is long
overdue.
The President has taken our Nation to the brink of war without
properly consulting Congress or seeking the legal authority to do so.
Only Congress can authorize military action under Article I of the
Constitution.
To add insult to injury, the Trump administration has failed to fully
explain to Congress and the American people what exactly the imminent
threat was to the United States that required the strike that was
undertaken. My constituents and people
[[Page H108]]
across the country have been terrified about the prospect of a new war
in the Middle East.
Now, let me be clear: No Member of Congress carries a brief for
Soleimani or the Iranian Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. No President has unilateral authority to take our Nation
to war without authorization from Congress. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes.''
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
{time} 1645
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if it were but a matter of offering three cheers for the
legislative branch, that would be fine, but this is dangerous and
simply makes no sense.
If the majority wished to assert Congress' authority, as several have
argued, it would not use a nonbinding resolution, but let me take the
majority at its chosen words, as if binding.
The words of the resolution would literally prohibit the President
from ordering the shoot-down of Iranian ballistic missiles inbound for
Haifa or a surface-to-air missile locked onto a Ukrainian airliner.
And the resolution's chosen words, as Democrats argue them, would
prevent the President from the strike on Soleimani itself even if
devastating harm to American soldiers were imminent but Democrats
second-guessed that judgment.
The language they have chosen is designed to debilitate the President
from protecting Americans.
The intemperate words of the past week have cost many their
credibility. Now Democrats' spite for President Trump has cost them
their good judgment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 AUMF.
In coming to that very difficult decision, I learned an important
lesson: that we must ask every administration that seeks to use
military force how it will manage the consequences of its actions, even
if those actions can be justified.
Has this administration done that? Unfortunately, I think the answer
is no.
I will vote for this resolution today for the same reasons I had
then: no overall strategy, no justification, and nobody in this
administration can answer how it will respond to the aftermath.
By virtue of the power and the responsibility granted to us by the
Constitution, we must ask those questions.
Let's take this opportunity to make diplomacy work. Let's stand
together as a Congress to establish our authority. Let's stand together
and vote against a new war without an end game.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant First Class Kurt Comeaux, Sergeant
Christopher Babin, Sergeant Bradley Bergeron, Sergeant Huey Fassbender,
Sergeant Armand Frickey, Sergeant Warren Murphy, Sergeant Craig Nelson,
First Lieutenant Christopher Barnett, Private First Class Torey
Dantzler, Private First Class James Lambert, Sergeant Taft Williams.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul, for giving me
additional time to finish the list that I started earlier.
These are 44 young Americans from Louisiana who died by IEDs in the
most active part of Iraq when Soleimani and his proxies were engaged.
They designed, they built, and they implemented these IEDs; and in
Louisiana alone, 44 young Americans gave their lives for the United
States of America.
President Trump, he had the authority, he has the right, and,
thankfully, he had the courage to terminate Soleimani and remove this
cancer from this Earth.
Mr. Speaker, to my Democratic colleagues and friends, I say, if you
can look these Gold Star families in the face and tell them that this
was not a justified strike and that Soleimani needed to be removed from
this Earth, then God have mercy on you.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, we may be relieved that an impulsive act
by President Trump has not immediately led to war with Iran, we may be
relieved that an evil man is dead, but as that evil man wished, our
troops have now been asked to leave Iraq, and if they stay, their
ability to work with Iraqis to fight ISIS has been shot.
As he wished, the protest movement in Iran and Iraq that threatened
the Iranian regime has been silenced.
As he wished, Iran is now breaking free of all restrictions on its
nuclear program.
We are not safer today.
In this moment of danger, there is just one question that this
resolution asks. It is not do you support what the President has
already done, but should Congress play our constitutional role in
deciding what happens next.
I support this resolution because passing it will protect us against
going to war with a tweet, but it also ensures that, if we do go to
war, which we may have to at some point, we will do so with the
American people united, not divided, as the Framers intended, as our
national interest demands.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cisneros).
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of our
Constitution and express the urgent need of Congress to reestablish
itself as an equal branch of government.
Our Founders explicitly laid out the roles and responsibilities of
the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, creating a
necessary system of checks and balances, but today we find our
democratic system in jeopardy.
In the past week, there has been an increasing concern about the
United States going to war with Iran.
Let me be very clear: If and when the President decides to use
military action, he must go through Congress first.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to
declare war. Any attempt to undermine that power would be unsafe,
unacceptable, and unconstitutional.
As a Navy veteran, I am constantly thinking of our brave
servicemembers. It is why I take this constitutional responsibility
seriously.
We cannot turn our backs to our principles, we cannot turn our backs
to our values, and we cannot turn our backs to the Constitution.
I look forward to voting for the War Powers Resolution and taking
Congress' power back.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Hice).
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in great frustration in opposition to this politically-
motivated resolution. It is nothing but a blatant attempt to handcuff
the President's ability to defend our citizens and our allies.
Just this morning, U.S. intelligence officials reported that they are
now confident that Ukraine Airlines 752 was shot down by Iranian
surface-to-air missiles, another 176 innocent lives lost.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been hostile to our Nation for
decades, and yet it has certainly escalated in the last several months
with a campaign of antagonistic military action.
Have my Democratic colleagues forgotten about the shipping vessel
sabotaged by naval mines last May and June, or the American drone shot
down over international waters, or the British oil tanker seized by the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or the Saudi oil facilities that were
attacked?
And then when an American citizen was killed in an attack on Kirkuk
Air Base in December and our Embassy in Iraq subsequently overrun, our
President drew a line in the sand. Yet, after months of tremendous
restraint, the President was determined that not one
[[Page H109]]
more American life would be lost by this hostile Iranian regime, and I
fully support the President in his actions.
I do agree with many of my colleagues that it is time for this body
to have a serious conversation and to address the many issues inherent
with operating under a 20-plus-year-old authorization for military
force, but that should not be confused with the process that is taking
place here with this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but an attempt by
the majority in a 3-year-long process by their party to take any and
every opportunity to undermine or embarrass this President. But be
assured that this politically-motivated resolution nor any evil that
comes our way will cause our President to hesitate when called upon to
defend American lives.
I just say, God bless the President; God bless America.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side
of the aisle, please don't question our motives or patriotism and we
won't question yours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
that reasserts congressional authority over going to war.
We know this: War is devastating for our troops, for their families,
for families and children everywhere, for not just this generation but
future generations to come, for our humanity. That is why our Framers
gave this body the opportunity, the responsibility to have that
discussion and declare war should it be needed.
In 2002, we rushed to war based on made-up claims of weapons of mass
destruction, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took hundreds of
thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, and cost us trillions
of dollars.
Today, the President, without providing any raw intelligence to prove
an imminent threat, has brought us to the brink of war with Iran. This
resolution makes it clear that Congress has not authorized this war.
We also must repeal the 2002 AUMF and vote to withhold funds for this
unauthorized war. It is time to reassert our authority.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of #13DistrictStrong.
This is a district that believes in leading with compassion. They
believe in a full stop to endless violent wars that only result in loss
of life and the destruction of lives forever changed.
For us, Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect our democracy and
promote global peace. We must remove political motives and for-profit
schemes from the decisionmaking process to go to war. If we don't, it
would only lead to more warfare and death.
We cannot allow a process that is tainted, secretive, or encompasses
lies to make that choice. We need a country that easily chooses peace
for generations to come.
I proudly represent a district that believes in the rule of law. That
is why I rise today as their voice in support of a War Powers
Resolution that will give them a say in whether or not our country goes
to war.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Green).
{time} 1700
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to
this resolution.
First, this is a nonbinding resolution. If you really wanted to exert
some congressional decisionmaking, we would do a bill that goes before
the President and gets signed or gets vetoed. This is purely theatrics.
None of these Democrat leaders stood up when President Obama violated
the airspace of Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden. Now, I am glad he
did that, but there was no congressional authorization to go into
Pakistan. At least here there is a congressional authorization for our
forces to be on the ground and using military power.
The President has clear authority under Article II to act when our
Nation and our military is at risk. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff said: ``The trigger for the drone strike that killed Soleimani
was `clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a significant campaign
of violence against the United States in the days, weeks, and months,'
and that the administration would have been `culpably negligent' if it
didn't act''--General Mark Milley.
These people understand one thing, and it is strength. You will
recall that when President Clinton pulled our forces out of Somalia
after we got the black eye on Black Hawk Down, bin Laden cited that as
proof that Americans run away, that they won't stand and fight.
I have been to combat three times in this region of the world, twice
in Iraq and once in Afghanistan. I have looked these individuals in the
eye. It is strength that they understand. And, clearly, it has shown
itself to be true again.
This President stood up, and Iran's response was clear. They had two
audiences in their response:
At home, they wanted people to see strength. They shot 15 missiles.
Back in their press, they are saying they killed Americans. They
didn't, of course.
The other audience, the United States and the rest of the world, they
fired 16 missiles, all 16 missed. All 16 missiles missed.
Remember when they hit Saudi Arabia? All those missiles hit. They
know how to hit their target. They fired 16 missiles against us and not
one hit.
What is the message they are saying? Immediately after they fired
them, they stood up and said: We are done. No more. That is the end of
our response. They told the Shia militia groups to stand down. Muqtada
al-Sadr said to his people today: Stand down.
They respond to strength, and our President did the right thing. He
was a strong response, a strong response to storming a sovereign U.S.
territory of an embassy with 6,000 people, killing American
contractors, and wounding American soldiers with a rocket attack.
Mr. Speaker, this President made a strong response, and it has shown
itself to work.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just can't really believe what I just
heard.
It was the 2001 AUMF that specifically authorized our going after
Osama bin Laden. He is the example of Congress getting involved. That
was the authorization to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or anyplace
else, and that is what we are trying to assure here, that things aren't
just happening, that there is actual authority. Osama bin Laden is the
wrong example, because we gave the authority to go after him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a United States Marine war
veteran, I came to Congress with the promise of never sending someone
else's child to a war that could be avoided. This War Powers Resolution
says no war with Iran without congressional approval, while still
ensuring defense if there is an imminent threat.
While we do not mourn the death of Iran's commander of terror,
Americans and our allies worry about the ramifications that will make
us less safe: the fight against ISIS has been diverted; regional
protests against the Iranian regime are now against America; Iranian
proxies have been further incited; and Iran is closer to having a
nuclear weapon.
America is not a monarchy. The decision to go to war requires debate,
deliberation, and collective judgment. That is why the law gives the
responsibility to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I will continue to reserve
until Chairman Engel is prepared to close.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Engel, for yielding.
I am troubled by aspects of this debate. I think it is fine that we
have different views, but to hear some on the other side characterize
the position of
[[Page H110]]
those who support this resolution as somehow not loving the country as
much as they do when it is our country, as well, that we have pledged
to defend--it is the same veterans on this side of the aisle who put
themselves in harm's way as the veterans on the other side of the
aisle. There is no distinction in the battlefield. We love our children
and want to defend them as much as we know you do as well. So let's
stop the demagoguery regarding patriotism.
This comes to a simple question. It is not even a question as to
whether or not there was justification to take out Mr. Soleimani,
because clearly there was. The question is: Who gives the
justification? Who authorizes military action in this country?
We can all have our opinions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. KILDEE. We ought to consult the Constitution, which clearly vests
that authority in this Congress. We ought not fear that authority and
outsource it to the executive branch. We ought to embrace that
authority and be willing to make that decision and follow the
Constitution.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.
Congress has long been absent without leave from its constitutional
responsibility to authorize war before it occurs. From Vietnam to Iran,
the verdict on the War Powers Act is clear: you lose it if you do not
use it.
Congress chafes at outsized Presidential power, but has failed to
exercise its own advice and consent power on war. Iran has stepped back
for now from the brink of war, following the killing of General
Soleimani, but a strong bipartisan 69 percent of the American people
say that war with Iran is now more likely. No wonder, considering we
just deployed 15,000 more troops to the region.
Trying to get answers after the fact, as Congress did in yesterday's
briefing, yielded frustration, not answers. Unchecked executive power
unbalances the safeguards against arbitrary power the Framers built
into our Constitution.
With passage of today's resolution, we will reclaim that balance by
reinserting Congress into decisions to go to war.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch), a very valued member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
Africa, and International Terrorism.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this War Powers
Resolution, and I thank my colleague from Michigan, Representative
Slotkin, for leading this effort today to assert Congress' rightful
authority and to defend our solemn constitutional duty.
None of us want to see our brave men and women sent into another war.
To be clear, this vote is not about telling the administration that
the President can't defend this country. My colleagues know that. They
understand it. I strongly reject any implication that somehow, by
supporting this resolution, we don't take our national security and the
safety of our servicemembers seriously.
To the contrary, nothing we do today limits the ability to respond to
a real and imminent threat or defend this country and our interests. To
assert so is simply false and it is reckless.
Today, we are telling the President that, if there is a serious
threat to the United States, our national security requires that a
solemn decision is made to engage U.S. Forces, and the elected
representatives of this body, of the American people, need to have that
case made to them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to have a robust debate about
any authorization for the use of military force.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I urge my colleagues to uphold
the Constitution.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I take a backseat to no Member of this body
when it comes to defending the President.
This resolution offers no criticism of the President, no critique. It
doesn't criticize the President's attack on Soleimani. As a matter
fact, this resolution doesn't even say Soleimani's name in it. Yet it
does articulate our very robust basis for self-defense, at times even
preemptory self-defense to defend our troops. And it also articulates
our nondelegable duty as the Members of the United States Congress to
speak to matters of war and peace.
I represent more troops than any other Member of this body. I buried
one of them earlier today at Arlington, and that sergeant died a
patriot and a hero.
If the members of our armed services have the courage to go and fight
and die in these wars, as Congress, we ought to have the courage to
vote for them or against them. And I think it is ludicrous to suggest
that we are impairing the troops from doing their job by not doing our
job articulated in the Constitution to speak to these matters of war
and peace.
I support the President. Killing Soleimani was the right decision,
but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the
wrong decision, and that is why I am voting for this resolution.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, the system of checks and balances is
broken. Last week's airstrike proves it.
After the strike, the administration produced a vague document that
attempts justifying America's push to the brink of war.
Mr. Speaker, I fought in a war started by a President with false and
trumped-up intelligence. We cannot let this President do the same.
Americans deserve to read the declassified report so they can judge
for themselves whether the strike was worth the risk. They will find an
administration shooting from the hip with no strategy to deal with
Iran.
It is time for Congress to lead and exercise the authority the
Founders gave us in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
It is time to tell the President he cannot send our troops to war
with Iran without a strategy and without the consent of their
representatives.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's strategy to
counter Iran has failed. He has allowed Iran to restart its nuclear
weapons program, disrupted our operations countering ISIS, continues to
undermine our relationship with NATO allies, and has led America to the
brink of a new and unnecessary war.
As someone who served in Iraq, I understand the costs of war, how our
soldiers put their lives on the line, and the impact these decisions
have on military families.
Our Founders entrusted Congress with the responsibility to declare
war. Congress owes it to the American people and our men and women in
uniform to carry out that responsibility.
It is time for Congress to declare that war with Iran is not in the
best interest of the American people. It is time for Congress to repeal
the 2002 AUMF and dramatically restrict the 2001 AUMF. And until we can
do that, we must prevent the President from unilaterally committing the
United States to another war in the Middle East.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office
watching this debate, and I began to wonder who it is that we are
actually debating against or what it is that we are debating against.
I think back to the killing of Osama bin Laden when we stood together
as the United States in saying this was the right thing to do at the
right time because it would save lives; the only thing we regretted was
that we didn't do it sooner when we had the chance to take him out, but
we delayed because we weren't sure.
[[Page H111]]
{time} 1715
I have gone back and read what President Obama said and he said, ``I
made this decision on my own.'' Yet, today, we stand in the people's
House, and we are worried more about the loss of an election in 2020
than the loss of American lives and the continued loss of lives around
the world by one of the worst terrorists of all time.
We sit here and try to pretend this charade is what we are concerned
about. But what we are really concerned about is giving too much power
to this President. This is a President who acted boldly. This is a
President who carried out a strike that was so precise, so strategic,
nothing else was hurt except the car in which that terrorist was riding
in.
Yet, we sit here today and say: Our problem in America isn't
terrorists around the world. Our problem in America is that we have a
President who is too damn strong. The rest of the world knows today
that our enemies certainly do fear us, because they know there is a
deterrent in the White House.
Our friends and allies know that America will always be there, will
always be there if we say we are going to be there, and we will always
stand up for the values that this country has always stood for.
To have this debate tonight and this resolution is not about securing
America or making America safer. This is about taking powers away from
the President of the United States. We can call this anything we want
and say, not just this President but any President in the future.
My God, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? This is the people's
House and our biggest responsibility is protecting our American
citizens, and we are having this debate tonight? Please, do not tell me
this is about taking away the Authorization for the Use of Military
Force. This is about taking away powers from the President.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it would be helpful if
peoples' motives or patriotism wasn't questioned.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the War
Powers Resolution introduced by my colleague from Michigan,
Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin.
Soleimani was an evil man, a terrorist, a war criminal. No one should
mourn his demise. But that doesn't change the question of who has the
authority to take our Nation into war. It is Congress and only Congress
that is endowed with the most solemn duty to decide if, when, and where
to commit our Nation to war.
At the same time, as Commander in Chief, it is incumbent upon our
President to ensure that the fine men and women who serve in our
military are only sent into harm's way after careful deliberation and
tasked with missions that protect and further America's interests and
reflect the values and high moral standing of our Nation.
Our country's Founders in their foresight provided us a robust and
constitutional Republic and representative government. They wisely
understood that taking a nation to war should not be a unilateral
decision by a single person, but a considered decision by the people's
elected Representatives.
This administration does not have congressional authorization for use
of military force or a declaration of war against Iran. Ultimately, any
sustained action against Iran requires congressional approval.
Today's resolution reflects the intentions of our Founders. It makes
clear the President must seek authorization from Congress for any
extended military engagement with Iran without restricting his ability
to protect the Nation from imminent threat.
I have the honor of representing Naval Station Great Lakes where
every enlisted sailor receives his or her basic training. I am the
proud father of a son serving in our Navy. We owe it to these
Americans, each one a volunteer answering the call to serve our
country, to protect this Constitution and live up to the expectations
of our Founders.
The American people do not want an unnecessary war with Iran. Today's
resolution prevents President Trump from unilaterally or impulsively
starting one. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), a man who served on the
battlefield in Iraq.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, actually, it takes a lot to get me to
come down to these things, but I have been deeply troubled by some of
the rhetoric I have been hearing about this. In fact, I was deeply
troubled after yesterday when my colleagues, many of them, left a
classified briefing only to immediately and recklessly trash the
quality of intelligence they received, and in some cases, suggest there
was no imminent threat from Soleimani.
To suggest that would require you to ignore the death of Americans
recently in Iraq, as well as ignore the history of Soleimani's campaign
of terror across the Middle East.
We learned this weekend, while this body was still in recess and
before anyone had reviewed any of the classified information, that it
was the intention of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
introduce this flawed War Powers Resolution without having even seen
any of the underlying intelligence. That suggests that this is not a
serious effort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious effort. This is a
political effort that will have the practical effect only of
undermining our military deterrent in the Middle East, which for the
first time in a long time is actually stronger.
I think this does a service not only to our personnel in the region,
but ultimately to the Iranian people. And what the Iranian regime fears
more than anything else, more than the American military and the
President of the United States, is its own people. And that is the
reason Soleimani's death squads have gunned down Iranian civilians in
the streets.
We look forward to the day when the Iranian people can be free of
their evil, barbarous, reckless regime, and I applaud the
administration's actions.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crow).
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, our Founders vested in Congress the solemn
responsibility of sending our sons and daughters to war.
I have often heard folks say that now is not the time to discuss the
use of force or the decision to send our men and women to fight. I
heard that in 2003 when I was carrying a rifle in Baghdad. I heard it
again in 2004 and 2005 when I was leading my unit through the mountains
of Afghanistan, and I am hearing it again today in the Halls of
Congress.
In the last 19 years, more than 7,000 Americans have given their
lives in these conflicts; 53,000 have been wounded; and we have spent
over $4 trillion of taxpayer money. Do not believe the fearmongering.
This resolution does nothing to prevent the President from protecting
the Nation against imminent threats. I have spent years fighting to
keep Americans safe and will continue to do so.
I may have laid down my rifle, but my oath to this country endures. I
will fight to ensure that we are having a discussion about when to send
our men and women, our sons and daughters, and our sisters and brothers
into harm's way. It is time to have this debate.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, at this point I continue to reserve the
balance of my time until the chairman is prepared to close.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the President's most
recent reckless actions. The killing of General Soleimani was a
provocation to war that made Americans less safe for years and maybe
decades to come.
The President has put his own ego over the strategic interests and
safety
[[Page H112]]
of Americans. What he has accomplished with these actions is to make
Soleimani a martyr for a generation of militant Middle Eastern foes
that we have.
It has united the Iranian people, not against their government, but
against us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the President and
Congress to keep us safe, and the Founding Fathers knew that the
collective wisdom of the people's Representatives was better at doing
that than one person.
I just visited the SCIF and there is still not any report on any
imminent danger claim that might have been made. The American people
and Congress deserve to know what the threat allegedly was, given the
inevitability of Iranian retaliation.
The two greatest powers Congress has are impeachment and declarations
of war. We are here today on both of those issues because of a
reckless, lawless, and impetuous President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks), a very distinguished gentleman on the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, the President should not be able to commit
the U.S. recklessly and flagrantly to war. That is the reason there are
constitutionally mandated checks and balances. The President escalated
hostilities with Iran and did not demonstrate any imminent threat nor
strategy as to why.
He clearly did not make our country safer. Quite the opposite. It is
not a sign of strength as some of my colleagues suggest. It was an
unchecked sign of more disarray and lack of strategic thinking.
We have seen what happens when we don't have a plan for what comes
next when we take out a bad actor without thinking through long-term
consequences.
We have lost too much blood and tears and treasure to ever allow that
to happen again. I support, and implore my colleagues to support, this
resolution for the sake and the state of future generations. I love
this country. This is the greatest country in the world because we have
checks and balances.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have just got a couple of words I would
like to remind this body about. I have heard a lot of talk about
patriotism, and I gave this arm in Vietnam.
I have got a lot of good friends whose names are on the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Wall, so don't talk to me about patriotism, and how
much I love this country when we are standing here debating an issue
that we all know is not going anywhere.
The last thing I would say to you is, while I was serving in Vietnam,
there were many occasions when I didn't have the ability to do what I
thought was necessary. I just say to you that this body couldn't make
up their mind whether they wanted to be in that war or not, and I
suggest we get with the right program and do it now.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in favor of exercising our Article I
authorities for matters as grave as war and peace, but the fact is, we
are not at war with Iran. The President is not trying to start a war
with Iran.
I met with the President earlier today. He told me that if this
resolution passes, it will take all of his power to negotiate with Iran
off the table. That is the worst thing that we could do.
Yesterday, he called for making a deal that allows for Iran to thrive
and prosper. The President is making the choice to move toward
deescalation.
The premise of this resolution is flawed because we are not engaged
in hostilities with Iran. The President is not trying to start
hostilities with Iran. Despite this public proclamation by our
President, my colleagues are trying to claim that the President still
wants to go to war.
I deeply regret that my colleagues are not serious enough about
exercising our Article I authorities to pursue regular order on such a
serious question. We have had no hearings in the House Foreign Affairs
Committee since these events transpired. There was no Foreign Affairs
Committee markup of this legislation.
I received the text of this legislation only 2 hours before the Rules
Committee meeting last night on a War Powers Resolution. Debating
issues of war and peace is perhaps our most important responsibility as
Members of Congress, and, yet, this legislation dropped last night
without committee consideration as required by the War Powers
Resolution.
{time} 1730
If my colleagues were as serious about Article I as they say they
are, then this would be a joint resolution with the force of law.
Instead, it is a House concurrent resolution that will never go to the
President's desk. Let me translate what that means to the American
people listening today.
Today, we are voting on a press release, a press statement. This is a
political statement for a leftwing domestic audience. But they are not
the only ones watching, Mr. Speaker.
Iran is watching, and its proxies are watching. What they see is a
divided America that does not fully support the ability of our
Commander in Chief to respond to imminent threats to Americans.
Churchill warned against appeasement when the dark clouds of fascism
and the Third Reich swept in, in my father's war. Weakness invites
aggression, he said. President Reagan said: ``Peace through strength.''
I believe in these ideals and these axioms.
Last May, it was reported that Soleimani met with Iraqi militias in
Baghdad and told them to ``prepare for proxy war.''
Without last week's strike, Soleimani would still be waging that
proxy war, a war that he was escalating. An American was killed less
than 2 weeks ago, and four American soldiers were injured. Our Embassy
in Baghdad was attacked under Soleimani's orders.
What more do we need? What more evidence do we need?
Let's talk about the facts. He is a designated terrorist under the
Obama administration. Importantly, the President told me today that
Soleimani was planning to blow up our Embassy. I need no further proof,
evidence, or intelligence than that from the President of the United
States.
What if the President had not acted? Let's assume that. By the way,
some on the other side of the aisle were criticizing him for not
responding after our Embassy was attacked.
What if he did not act. What if Soleimani had made it back to Tehran
to meet with the Ayatollah to give the green light to carry out the
plot to attack our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq? What if the
Americans were killed? What if they killed our soldiers and diplomats?
What if they successfully stormed our American Embassy and held our
marines and diplomats hostage, like they did in 1979 when this whole
reign of terror started with Jimmy Carter in the White House?
How would the critics of the President respond then if we had done
nothing? How would the American people respond? How would the Gold Star
Mothers respond?
No, this President did the right thing to take out this threat that
killed so many Americans. I have been to too many funerals, as many of
us in this Chamber have, and many of those soldiers were killed at the
bloody hands of Soleimani. As many Americans whose families still
grieve today, we grieve for them.
Since 1979, Iran has presided over a reign of terror in the region.
For over two decades, Soleimani has been the mastermind of terror, and
the world is safer today without him.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that now is not the time to
divide this Nation and play into the propaganda of Iran. Now is not the
time to tie our Commander in Chief's hands. Now is the time to support
our men and women in uniform.
[[Page H113]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, this body has to make a decision about whether we are
going to stand up for our constitutional responsibilities or just
subordinate ourselves to the executive branch when it comes to war
powers.
We are two decades into the 21st century. Our country has been at war
almost that entire time. Not a day goes by that I don't wish we could
have some of those decisions back, especially because we see that those
measures we passed in 2001 and 2002 are still being used to justify
sending American men and women into harm's way.
We could stand here all day and say your side let this happen when
you were in charge, or you didn't say anything when this President did
that. I don't disagree that it has been a collective failure on the
part of this body that we have given away our authority on war powers
and that we haven't done enough to grapple with the issue.
I hope today will not be the end of our efforts to make progress on
debating Congress' war powers. If the President thinks he needs to use
military force, then he needs to come to Congress and make the case and
let us vote on it. This is the beginning of Congress' taking back its
authority.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support
this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Truth matters, Mr. Speaker. Truth matters.
Truth is not Democratic or Republican. Truth is not partisan. It is
the basis of any society that hopes to be and hopes to remain
civilized. And so, when a faction decides that facts are flexible, that
facts are whatever validates their preconceived notions and not what
is, then that nation may as well close shop and turn out the lights.
The Trump administration's justification for military action against
Iran has been inconsistent at best. Donald Trump's speech on January 8,
2020 was a pathetic spectacle. And the Congressional briefing was a
sham, a cavalcade of falsehoods that has been denounced by Democrats
and Republicans alike.
Any rational observer, any fair-minded person can see it. Certainly,
my Republican colleagues know. Which is why some have turned to
audacious, outrageous statements. I have heard them say that dissenting
voices support terrorism simply for asking questions. That those of us
who want to avoid war are traitors.
They have gone so far and have gone so low to blame President Obama
for Iran's recent attack on U.S. forces. Going so far as to lie that
Iran was given over $150 billion after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action was signed.
These are scurrilous lies. Let me repeat that: these accusations are
lies, told by desperate people. Told by people too cowardly to put
their ambitions aside to lift a finger for truth. I'd say they should
be ashamed of themselves, but they are clearly past shame. That ship
has sailed.
In his opus, George Orwell observed that ``The party told you to
reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most
essential command.'' That's an exact blueprint for these lies. Those
propagating these lies may be at war with truth, but I'm not. I still
believe in truth and in fact.
Here is the truth and the fact. The ham-fisted decisions of the Trump
administration will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but
could hasten that outcome.
Here is the truth. War with Iran will not benefit us. War endangers
our troops, leads to death and misery, and harms our allies.
Here is the fact. Americans do not want another damn war.
War powers belong to Congress, not the President, and it is our job
here to defend our constitutional prerogative. And we did this by
passing a war powers resolution.
I believe in truth. I do not believe in unnecessary war. And I stand
with this House that today made a big statement for both. To correct
the record of lies, I include in the Record this New York Times article
``References in Address to 2013 Deal Had Holes'' by Linda Qiu from
January 9, 2020.
[From The New York Times, Jan. 8, 2020]
Fact Check--Trump's Inaccurate Statements About the Conflict With Iran
(By Linda Qiu)
President Trump, responding during a White House address on
Wednesday to the missile strikes by Iran, assailed the
nuclear agreement reached by his predecessor and praised
American military might. The 10-minute address contained
numerous inaccuracies and claims that lacked evidence. Here's
a fact check.
What Mr. Trump said:
``Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the
foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were
given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.''
This is misleading. The agreement reached by Iran, the
United States and a number of other nations to constrain
Tehran's nuclear program did not directly provide American
money to Iran, but it did release about $100 billion in
previously frozen Iranian assets. Much of the amount was tied
up by debt obligations, for example, $20 billion to China for
financing projects in Iran. Estimates for the actual amount
available to Iran range from $35 billion to $65 billion.
A separate $1.7 billion transfer of cash to Iran was to
settle a decades-long dispute and was agreed to in
negotiations that happened parallel to the nuclear deal.
Before the 1979 revolution, Iran's shah had paid $400 million
for American military goods but, after he was overthrown, the
equipment was never delivered. The clerics who seized control
demanded the money back, but the United States refused. The
additional $1.3 billion is interest accumulated over 35
years.
Iran and other parties to the nuclear accord signed an
interim agreement in 2013, but the formal agreement was not
reached until 2015. The White House did not respond when
asked for evidence of increased Iranian ``hostilities.''
It is worth noting that before Mr. Trump withdrew the
United States from the nuclear agreement in 2018, his
administration repeatedly certified that Iran was in
compliance.
Afterward, as his so-called maximum-pressure campaign on
Iran continued, tensions between the United States and Iran
``escalated significantly,'' according to a recent
Congressional Research Service report. Mr. Trump's claim
blaming the nuclear accord for Iranian aggression rather than
his withdrawal from it is ``almost an inverted reality,''
said Jim Walsh, a research associate at M.I.T.'s Security
Studies Program and an expert on nuclear issues and the
Middle East.
He said that attacks by the four groups supported by Iran
and designated by some governments as terrorist
organizations--Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad
and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command--actually declined after the nuclear deal.
Attacks carried out by these groups decreased from more
than 80 in 2014 to six in 2017, before increasing to more
than 40 in 2018, according to the Global Terrorism Database
maintained by the University of Maryland's National
Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to
Terrorism. And while Iran has been a violent and
destabilizing force across the region, Mr. Trump's assertion
that Tehran had ``created hell'' lacked context in some
cases.
Iranian aid to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in that
country's civil war and Tehran's backing of Houthi rebels in
Yemen both predate the signing of the nuclear agreement,
formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
``There's nothing that Iran was doing after J.C.P.O.A. that
it wasn't doing before,'' said Vali R. Nasr, a professor of
Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University and a State
Department official in the Obama administration.
Calling Iran's backing of the Houthi rebels against the
Saudi Arabia-aligned government in Yemen terrorism is
``devaluing the word to the point where it's meaningless,''
said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on military affairs and the
Middle East at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
As for Iran's activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr.
Cordesman said, ``they were more aggressive there because
they were working to attack ISIS--as we were.''
What Mr. Trump said:
``The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were
paid for with the funds made available by the last
administration.''
This lacks evidence. The White House did not respond when
asked to substantiate this claim, and experts noted there was
no proof that Iranian assets unfrozen by the deal paid for
the missiles.
``There's a certain fungibility here,'' Mr. Walsh said. If
the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, ``took a
dollar on the street, did that fund the missile attack?'' he
added. ``That's not very useful from an analytical
perspective. Nor is the case that giving them money caused
them to attack the U.S.''
''We have no indication,'' Mr. Cordesman said, ``whether
these missiles are funded by the money from the J.C.P.O.A.''
The director of national intelligence's annual report on
worldwide threats in 2019 did note that Iran continued to
develop and improve military capabilities including ballistic
missiles, but it did not tie those efforts to the nuclear
deal. Furthermore, the annual reports warned of the same
efforts in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012 and before.
Critics of the Iran deal, including Mr. Trump, have long
argued that it was inadequate because it did not address
Iran's ability to develop ballistic missiles. Those
restrictions have instead been established by the United
Nations Security Council resolutions.
The diplomatic accord was an arms deal with a very narrow
aim of curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, ``not a
nonaggression pact, not a form of a friendship treaty,'' Mr.
Nasr of Johns Hopkins said. ``Whether there could have been
more in the deal, of course. But piling in expectations is
disingenuous.''
[[Page H114]]
What Mr. Trump said:
``The very defective J.C.P.O.A. expires shortly anyway and
gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout.''
This is exaggerated. The major provisions limiting Iran's
nuclear capabilities last a decade or longer. And the
agreement increased the ``breakout'' period--the time it
would take Iran to produce enough fuel for one weapon--to at
least a year from an estimated two to three months. If the
deal had been left in place and fully adhered to, Iran would
not have been able to achieve nuclear breakout until 2030.
The agreement also prohibits Iran from pursuing nuclear
weapons permanently. ``Iran reaffirms that under no
circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any
nuclear weapons,'' the first paragraph of the deal reads.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a vocal
critic of the deal, said it ``largely expires after only 15
years.'' Under the deal's terms, Iran agreed not to use more
than 5,060 centrifuges to enrich uranium--and not to pursue
research and development on centrifuges--for 10 years. Limits
on enrichment levels, facilities and stockpiles last for 15
years, according to a report from the Congressional Research
Service.
Under the terms of the accord, Iran also agreed to convert
a deep underground enrichment facility into a ``technology
center'' that cannot contain nuclear material and where the
number of centrifuges is limited for 15 years. Several
provisions on plutonium, including forbidding the
construction of new heavy water reactors, last for 15 years.
Inspectors are to monitor centrifuges and related
infrastructure for 15 years, verify inventory for 20 years
and monitor uranium mines for 25 years.
What Mr. Trump said:
``We are now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas
anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need
Middle East oil.''
This is misleading. The United States has been the largest
producer of oil and gas in the world since 2013, a trend that
began under the Obama administration thanks in large part to
advances in shale drilling techniques.
The Energy Information Administration projected in January
2019 that the United States will produce more energy than it
imports this year, the first time since 1950. But that is not
the same thing as not importing oil from the Middle East at
all. In 2018, the United States imported more than 1.5
million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf.
What was said:
``The American military has been completely rebuilt under
my administration at a cost of $2.5 trillion.''
This is exaggerated. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the
total defense budgets of the past four fiscal years: $606
billion the 2017 fiscal year (which began before Mr. Trump
took office), $671 billion in 2018, $685 billion in 2019 and
$718 billion in 2020. But the amount spent on procurement--
buying and upgrading equipment--was about $562 billion over
that period.
Mr. Trump's use of the phrase ``completely rebuilt'' is
somewhat subjective. Though the Trump administration has
invested in operational readiness over the past few years,
there are signs that the military continues to face
substantial challenges in addressing an array of threats from
around the world.
For example, the military earned a middling grade of
``marginal'' from the conservative Heritage Foundation's
annual index of strength, based on factors like shortages in
personnel and aging equipment. The think tank noted that
American forces are probably capable of meeting the demands
of a single major regional conflict but ``would be very hard-
pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to
handle two nearly simultaneous major regional
contingencies.''
What was said:
``Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS
and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of
ISIS, al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for so much death.''
This is exaggerated. The Islamic State lost its final
territories in March 2019, ending the physical ``caliphate,''
but the terrorist group has not been destroyed. The recent
confrontation with Iran has halted the United States'
campaign against ISIS. Just this week, Defense Secretary Mark
T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said that the fight against the group was
continuing.
Mr. Trump alluded to the organization's endurance in his
speech when he said: ``ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The
destruction of ISIS is good for Iran. And we should work
together on this and other shared priorities.''
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, according to ABC News, General
Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said that the ``Dec. 27
attack on the Iraqi base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. civilian
contractor and wounded several U.S. and Iraqi forces . . . was designed
and intended to kill, and [Soleimani] approved it. I know that 100
percent.''
General Milley said that the trigger for the drone strike that killed
Soleimani was ``clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days,
weeks, and months,'' and that the administration would have been
``culpably negligent'' if it didn't act.
Former Obama Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on NBC's
Meet the Press that ``whether Soleimani was a terrorist or a general in
a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people,
he was a lawful military objective.''
Mr. Speaker, Soleimani is responsible for killing over 600 Americans
and disabling thousands more. He is directly responsible for massive
death and injury of innocent civilians in the region. In the last two
months alone, he orchestrated 11 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq--
killing an American contractor and wounding four soldiers--and for the
attack on our embassy in Baghdad.
After yesterday's classified briefing by America's top diplomatic,
military and intelligence leaders, I came away convinced that the
action by President Trump was justified, proportionate and above all
necessary to protect American lives.
That said, it is astonishing that the resolution under consideration
by the House today has absolutely no legal power, is non-binding--and
by design can neither be signed nor vetoed by the President.
Remarkably, the text of H. Con. Res. 83 also sends a mixed message.
While purporting to ``terminate the use of United States Armed Forces
to engage in hostilities in or against Iran. . . .'' the non-binding
resolution goes on to say that such a prohibition is null and void if
``such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend
against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the
requirement of the War Powers Resolution.''
Imminent armed attack on our Armed Forces and diplomats is precisely
the Trump Administration's justification for the drone strike against
Soleimani.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, no president used
drone strikes more than President Obama who ordered 542 drone strikes
killing an estimated 3,797 people including 324 civilians.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, this body will vote to reaffirm the
fact that Congress has the sole power to declare war, as laid out in
the Constitution. After nearly two decades at war, President Trump has
further risked the safety and security of America, our servicemembers,
and our allies by escalating tensions with Iran to a dangerous new
level. The Trump Administration's military airstrike targeting
highlevel Iranian officials is just another example of President Trump
undermining our national security by acting recklessly and without
sound legal authority or reason. His rash decisions have made America
less safe. War must always be our last recourse, and any escalation
that brings our nation closer to a third disastrous war in the Middle
East is unacceptable. The American people will not stand for it.
The War Powers Act exists as a safeguard against intensifying
military actions that can accidentally lead to war. It ensures that a
President will engage in a public conversation with the American people
about the merits of war, before deploying their loved ones. The Trump
Administration must now recognize Congress's authority as a coequal
branch of government and request, as well as justify, authorization for
any future military activity against Iran. Additionally, the
Administration must work with Congress to ensure an immediate,
effective deescalation strategy that prevents further violence.
While I am proud to support the War Powers Resolution, this must be
the first of many steps to reassert Congress's responsibilities under
Article 1 of the Constitution. I opposed the 2002 Iraq Authorization
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and have worked for the last
decade to repeal it, including most recently voting against the
National Defense Authorization Act when it failed to include a House-
passed repeal. I was pleased the Speaker announced plans for the House
to pass Congresswoman Barbara Lee's resolution to finally repeal the
2002 AUMF and Congressman Ro Khanna's legislation to prohibit funding
for military action against Iran not authorized by Congress. I am proud
to cosponsor both of these bills. We owe it to our military and
civilian personnel, our allies, and every American to ensure that
Congress upholds its constitutional authority to authorize the use of
military force.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this Administration's impulsive and
reckless behavior has made our nation and the men and women of our
armed forces less safe. It has heightened the risk of a conflict in the
Middle East and it has jeopardized our relationship with our allies--
both in the region and around the world.
We should remember--not long ago, many Members of this body voted to
ratify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Iran deal. That
agreement was working, it was accepted by the world and, most of all,
it was containing Iran from securing nuclear weapons.
[[Page H115]]
President Trump and his Administration turned away from that
agreement, setting off a chain reaction of events, which led to
yesterday's attacks by Iran on American personnel who are serving in
Iraq.
We should be clear--no one in this body--Democrat or Republican--will
mourn the loss of Soleimani. He was a monster who was responsible for
horrible atrocities. However, we also have to question whether the
actions taken by this Administration in killing him made our nation,
our servicemembers and our allies safer or less safe.
So where have the Trump Administration's policies brought us?
The government of Iraq is asking U.S. forces to leave. After
thousands of American lives were lost and billions of dollars spent,
our ally in the fight against ISIS appears to be moving toward
expelling U.S. troops.
Iran has announced that it is resuming aggressive development of
nuclear weapons. The people of Iran are coalescing behind their
government, united in outrage from Soleimani's killing.
The United States government needs a comprehensive, well-considered
strategy for Iran. That strategy needs to be explained to Congress--and
more importantly to the American people. The rationale for killing
Soleimani must be fully and publicly explained. I believe the American
people people--when they hear the evidence--will agree that this action
was not necessary to prevent an imminent attack.
Most of all, we can no longer allow diplomacy and national security
to be conducted through Twitter.
The Resolution we will vote on today would prevent the Administration
from pursuing additional military action against Iran without properly
consulting Congress.
We, as a nation, must learn from the mistakes of the past. We cannot
allow our country to ignite another war by conducing foreign policy in
an irresponsible, impulsive manner.
The young people wearing our uniform abroad count on us to be better.
We have a moral obligation to the millions of innocent civilians living
in the Middle East who could perish or lose loved ones or their homes
if a broader conflict erupts.
We must be better than this Administration has been. I urge my
colleagues to support this Resolution.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United
States approved airstrikes targeting General Qassem Soleimani, he did
so without the authorization of, or consultation by, the Congress.
Americans stationed abroad are now categorically less safe than they
were before the president took action.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, no American will mourn the loss of
General Soleimani--and nor should they. We are not here on the floor
today to debate the merits of his assassination, but rather to address
the failure of this Administration to adhere to the longstanding
procedure of congressional consultation as mandated by the War Powers
Resolution; specifically, the failure to properly and expeditiously
articulate to the Congress any intelligence supporting the alleged
threat which prompted this assassination.
The Administration's actions have already endangered the lives of
many American servicemembers, diplomats, and foreign service officers.
I fear that the path we are on now, one lacking a coherent strategy
moving forward, will only add to the instability of the region and lead
to an extended conflict for which we are not prepared.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply reaffirms to the president and to
the public Congress's role in authorizing the use of military force. As
representatives of Americans from every corner of the country, we
deserve to have our voices heard in a serious discussion on the
implications of yet another conflict in the Middle East.
I plan to vote in favor of the resolution and would urge my
colleagues to do the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 781, the previous question is ordered on
the concurrent resolution, as amended.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of H. Con. Res. 83 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5078.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 194, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 7]
YEAS--224
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rooney (FL)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Buchanan
Carter (TX)
Crawford
Fitzpatrick
Hunter
Johnson (OH)
Kind
[[Page H116]]
Kirkpatrick
Loudermilk
Serrano
Simpson
Torres (CA)
Walker
{time} 1801
Mr. CRENSHAW changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
