[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

[[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.

____________________