IRAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 5
(House of Representatives - January 09, 2020)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H92-H116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 781, I call up 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) directing the President 
pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the 
use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or 
against Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 781, the 
amendment printed in House Report 116-371 is adopted, and the 
concurrent resolution, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 83

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES 
                   TO ENGAGE IN HOSTILITIES IN OR AGAINST IRAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of 
     terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities 
     across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was 
     the lead architect of much of Iran's destabilizing activities 
     throughout the world.
       (2) The United States has an inherent right to self-defense 
     against imminent armed attacks. The United States maintains 
     the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel 
     serving abroad.
       (3) In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive 
     branch should indicate to Congress why military action was 
     necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the 
     possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why 
     the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks 
     against the United States.
       (4) The United States has national interests in preserving 
     its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region, 
     including by--
       (A) combating terrorists, including the Islamic State of 
     Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
       (B) preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons 
     capability; and
       (C) supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other 
     countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to 
     government corruption and violations of basic human rights.
       (5) Over the past eight months, in response to rising 
     tensions with Iran, the United States has introduced over 
     15,000 additional forces into the Middle East.
       (6) When the United States uses military force, the 
     American people and members of the United States Armed Forces 
     deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military 
     force.
       (7) The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) 
     requires the President to consult with Congress ``in every 
     possible instance'' before introducing United States Armed 
     Forces into hostilities.
       (8) Congress has not authorized the President to use 
     military force against Iran.
       (b) Termination.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 
     Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby 
     directs the President to terminate the use of United States 
     Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or 
     any part of its government or military, unless--
       (1) Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory 
     authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or
       (2) such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and 
     appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon 
     the United States, its territories or possessions, or its 
     Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War 
     Powers Resolution.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed--
       (1) to prevent the President from using military force 
     against al Qaeda or associated forces;
       (2) to limit the obligations of the executive branch set 
     forth in the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.);
       (3) to affect the provisions of an Act or joint resolution 
     of Congress specifically authorizing the use of United States 
     Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran or any 
     part of its government or military that is enacted after the 
     date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution;
       (4) to prevent the use of necessary and appropriate 
     military force to defend United States allies and partners if 
     authorized by Congress consistent with the requirements of 
     the War Powers Resolution; or
       (5) to authorize the use of military force.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall 
be debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 83, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are here this afternoon so that this body can exercise one of its 
most

[[Page H93]]

important constitutional responsibilities, deciding on whether or not 
this country will wage war, whether or not we will check an executive 
that has brought our country to a dangerous brink.
  In recent months, tensions between the United States and Iran have 
ticked up, bit by bit, until this last week, when we found ourselves in 
a crisis like we haven't seen in decades.
  Let's be clear: The Iranians are responsible for their own harmful 
behavior. We know this is a regime that underwrites terrorism, that 
tries to strengthen its own position by fomenting instability and 
provocation. We know that about Iran. No one expects Iran to be the 
adult in the room when it comes to global affairs.
  What we do expect is that American leadership and American policy 
will be the moderating force.
  So the world was stunned last week when the Trump administration 
chose, instead, the path towards escalation with the killing of Qasem 
Soleimani.
  We need to be honest about Soleimani. He was a bad guy. He had 
masterminded attacks and campaigns that cost thousands of innocent 
lives. In the places where we have seen Iran's most harmful activity, 
Soleimani's fingerprints were everywhere. He had American blood on his 
hands, and the world is better off without him.
  But are we really safer today, as the administration claims, with 
American citizens told to get out of Iraq as fast as they can; 
thousands of troops deploying to the Middle East; an eviction notice 
from the Iraqi Government, whose partnership we depend on in the fight 
against ISIS; Iranian missiles endangering American personnel?
  It certainly doesn't feel like we are safer, and a poll out today 
shows that the American people agree.
  In foreign policy, you have to weigh decisions like this. As awful as 
Soleimani was, this action has endangered American lives and American 
security.
  The President and his advisers say they had no choice; that there was 
imminent threat. Then they said, well, he had done bad things in the 
past and was going to do more bad things in the future. When they sent 
a report on the strike to Congress, the administration took the highly 
unusual step of classifying it.
  And then yesterday, in a classified briefing, when Members demanded 
to see the evidence that justified the strike, the message from the 
administration essentially boiled down to this: Trust us. When we 
asked, What is the plan going forward? The administration essentially 
told Members: Trust us.
  Trust us is not good enough, Madam Speaker, not for me, and not for 
the American people.
  Madam Speaker, if they are going to send our men and women in uniform 
into harm's way, they shouldn't hide the facts.
  First of all, this administration hasn't given us any reason to 
believe that this is a fact. The foreign policy of this administration 
has undermined American leadership, cut our diplomats off at the knees, 
alienated our allies, and walked away from our obligations. We have 
lurched from crisis to crisis, each time hoping that the situation 
won't spin out of control.
  I call it fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants foreign policy, and it is no 
way to advance American interests and values on the global stage.
  But beyond that, beyond the way this administration has acted, it is 
not the job of Congress to give any administration its blind trust. It 
is why we have separation of powers. It is why the Constitution 
entrusts war powers to Congress.
  Let me say that again. It is why the Constitution entrusts war powers 
to Congress. We haven't had a declared war in this country since World 
War II. It is not the way it should happen.
  So it is a relief that both the administration and the Iranians have, 
for the moment, opted to de-escalate. But we would be foolish to think 
this crisis is over. It could flame up again in the blink of an eye, 
and I worry that another misstep on either side could be what plunges 
our country into another ill-advised war in the Middle East.
  I will say it very plainly: The American people do not want war with 
Iran. With the measure before us today, we are denying the President 
the authority to wage such a war.
  This would direct the President to terminate the use of armed force 
against Iran without congressional authorization unless it is necessary 
to respond to an imminent armed attack against the United States.
  The President always has the power to defend America. No one denies 
that. This resolution explicitly preserves this right, but that is a 
limited exception. The President shouldn't abuse it.
  Now, we have heard the argument that the 2002 Authorization for the 
Use of Military Force, the Iraq war authorization, would justify 
military action against Iran. That is just wrong. It is not what 
Congress intended when it passed that resolution. I was here. I 
remember it. It should be repealed, not used to launch more military 
action.
  If the President wants to use military force against Iran, he has to 
come to Congress. Any President has to come to Congress. We are not 
making rules only for this President. We are making rules for the 
President, any President, vis-a-vis, Congress' constitutional powers.

  The President has to make the case first, first, not after he 
launches an ill-advised attack, then after the fact, comes up with a 
reason why it was necessary and why it was legal. That is not the way 
our system works.
  Today, I have heard the myth floating around that this resolution is 
nonbinding; that it is just symbolic. So let me quote from the War 
Powers Act to prove that untrue.
  The War Powers law says: ``At any time that United States Armed 
Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United 
States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or 
specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the 
President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' Again, 
by concurrent resolution. That is what the War Powers Act states that 
we need do. That is what we are doing today.
  This is the House of Representatives exercising its Article I 
authority. We don't get authority over war powers just because--if the 
President says so. We get authority over war powers, period. That is 
our authority. So let's put that fiction to rest.
  And one final point, Madam Speaker, about the tone of this debate. 
Yesterday, a Member of this body went on television and said that 
Democrats ``are in love with terrorists. They mourn Soleimani more than 
they mourn our Gold Star families.''
  Another Member labeled a group of colleagues ``Ayatollah 
sympathizers.''
  At a time when we are talking about policy that will have direct 
bearing on American men and women, servicemembers and diplomats in 
harm's way, comments like that reflect very poorly on this body. And I 
remind the House that all Members, in both parties, regardless of 
party, love this country. These words have no place in this debate.
  On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we take pride in debating issues, 
even the toughest issues, on the merits and on the facts. I salute my 
friend, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for working so closely with me 
to make sure we do so. That is one of the keys of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  I strongly encourage all Members on both sides to bear that in mind 
during this debate. We all take the same oath. We can argue about this 
resolution without questioning one another's motives or one another's 
patriotism.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 83.
  When President Obama took down Osama Bin Laden, the Republican 
Members joined with Democrats, as Americans, to praise the President. 
Unfortunately, today, Democrats are incapable of giving this President 
credit where credit is due, which only emboldens Iran.
  I am surprised to be faced with this partisan resolution today. We 
should be standing together, as the chairman mentioned, as a Nation. 
Instead, this resolution plays politics with national security.
  Yesterday, the President laid out a measured response to Iran's 
ballistic missile attacks. Let me be clear. The President is not 
seeking war with Iran. The President has shown, if anything,

[[Page H94]]

great restraint regarding Iran, including after Iran's downing of a 
U.S. drone, a U.S. military asset.
  But in their blind contempt for the President, my colleagues are 
ignoring the assessments of career intelligence and military 
professionals.

                              {time}  1445

  Our colleagues on the other side are downplaying the murderous evil 
of Soleimani, the mastermind of terror in the Middle East for over two 
decades.
  Soleimani was designated as a terrorist by the Obama administration. 
He was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans and 
wounded thousands more.
  Soleimani was involved in the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi 
Ambassador to the United States on American soil in Georgetown, right 
in this city. Soleimani oversaw Iran's support for Assad in Syria, 
including convincing Russia to fight for Assad, killing hundreds of 
thousands. This year, Soleimani played a key role in the crackdown on 
protestors in Iraq that killed hundreds of Iraqis.
  It should be clear to any reasonable person that Soleimani posed a 
long-term threat to the United States and to innocent civilians in the 
Middle East and across the globe. We don't need to get into classified 
details to see Soleimani's clear threat.
  According to the Department of Defense, in the last 2 months, 
Soleimani and his proxies launched 12 attacks against U.S. forces and 
facilities in Iraq. On December 27, Soleimani's Iranian proxies killed 
an American and injured four U.S. servicemembers near Kirkuk. On 
December 31, Soleimani's Iranian proxies launched an assault on the 
United States Embassy in Baghdad.
  But Soleimani was not done. Secretary Pompeo said that Soleimani was 
``actively plotting'' to take ``big action'' that would ``put dozens if 
not hundreds of American lives at risk,'' which DOD said targeted 
American diplomats and servicemembers in Iraq and throughout the 
region.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, said that the 
administration would have been ``culpably negligent,'' given the 
evidence and intelligence they had, had they not acted.
  The President possessed the legal authority for this strike and 
complied with his obligation to report it to Congress within 48 hours 
under the War Powers Resolution. The President has inherent Article II 
authority as Commander in Chief to defend United States personnel from 
attacks that Soleimani was carrying out and plotting against Americans. 
It is an act of self-defense.
  This is not just a partisan analysis. Jeh Johnson, President Obama's 
general counsel at the Department of Defense and former Secretary of 
Homeland Security, approved the airstrikes during the Obama 
administration. He stated that Soleimani ``was a lawful military 
objective, and the President, under his constitutional authority as 
Commander in Chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out 
without an additional congressional authorization.'' That was President 
Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security.
  As a second authority, the National Security Adviser cited the 2002 
AUMF that authorized the use of force ``to defend the national security 
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' 
That authorization has been used previously to address terrorist 
threats to U.S. personnel inside Iraq, including by President Obama to 
go after ISIS terrorist forces in Iraq.
  The dangerously partisan reactions to last week's strike in defense 
of Americans are even more apparent when compared to Democratic 
reactions to Obama's thousands of unauthorized airstrikes in defense of 
Libyans inside Libya in 2011.
  Back in June 2011, then-Leader Pelosi was asked about the Obama 
administration's months of airstrikes inside Libya, dropping hundreds 
of millions of dollars in U.S. munitions without congressional 
authorization. Leader Pelosi was asked: ``Madam Leader, you are saying 
that the President did not need authorization initially and still does 
not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?'' Her answer was, 
``Yes.''
  She said: ``I believe the limited nature of this engagement allows 
the President to go forward. . . . I am satisfied that the President 
has the authority he needs to go ahead.''
  That logic should apply far more in the strike against Soleimani to 
protect Americans.
  I am pleased the administration did not hesitate to take bold action, 
given the high threat level. Soleimani showed us through the embassy 
attack and the attacks on U.S. forces that he was serious about hurting 
Americans.
  Our intelligence community saw his next plan coming together, and our 
military, under direction from our Commander in Chief, acted. They saw 
the storm coming, and they stopped it.
  I thank the President and the men and women of our intelligence 
community and the military for upholding their responsibility to 
protect American lives. Instead of supporting the President, 
unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues are dividing Americans at a 
critical time, weakening our leverage overseas and emboldening our 
enemy, the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution, which seeks to tie the 
President's hands as he continues to defend Americans in the Middle 
East.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), the author of this important resolution.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, a War 
Powers Resolution that states that the President of the United States 
must consult Congress before going to war with Iran. This is simply 
what our Constitution requires.
  For me, this is not a theoretical exercise. My husband spent 30 years 
in the Army and retired as a colonel. We actually met on my third tour 
in Iraq, when I was a CIA officer. My stepdaughter is a brand-new Army 
officer. My son-in-law's unit is stationed at Al Asad Air Base, which 
was just targeted by ballistic missiles this week.
  If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted 
war, the President owes the American public a conversation. The 
resolution we will be voting on today allows us to start that debate, 
as our Founders intended.
  Let me be clear: The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of 
terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the 
Middle East. I have experienced these personally as a former CIA 
analyst. I served multiple tours in Iraq, three tours. My specialty is 
Iranian-backed Shia militias.
  I have followed Iran's destabilizing activity in Iraq up close for my 
entire professional career. I have watched friends and colleagues hurt 
or killed by Iranian rockets, mortars, and explosive devices. Iranian 
General Qasem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran's 
destabilizing activities in the Middle East and throughout the world.
  To that end, with Iran or with any other adversary, the United States 
always has the inherent right and obligation to self-defense against 
imminent armed attacks--always. The United States always maintains the 
right and the responsibility to ensure the safety of our diplomatic 
personnel and our Armed Forces serving abroad.
  When it comes to the matter of longer term war either as something 
that we choose as a Nation or as something that we find ourselves in, 
as Members of this body, we have a constitutional responsibility to 
authorize the use of military force.
  The Framers of our Constitution rightly believed that the power to 
declare war belongs in the Congress because this would ensure that the 
American people, through the legislators they elected, weigh the most 
significant decision a government can make.
  To this end, the resolution does a few simple things.
  First, it states that the President does not currently have 
authorization for war against Iran, which his own Secretary of Defense 
acknowledged in a congressional hearing last month.
  Second, it requires the President to get congressional authorization 
if he wants to conduct a protracted war with Iran.
  Third, it makes clear that the President maintains the authority to 
use force to prevent imminent attacks against the United States or our 
forces. As someone who has spent her career

[[Page H95]]

in national security, it is extremely important to me that this 
resolution in no way ties the President's hands or takes away any 
capabilities from our military commanders to respond in self-defense 
for ourselves and our allies.
  We have been at war for nearly two decades, which has spanned both 
Republican and Democratic administrations, as my colleague pointed out. 
In that time, Congress has voted only twice to authorize the use of 
military force, in 2001 and 2002.
  Congress has long abdicated its responsibility as laid out in the 
Constitution to make the hard decisions we owe our troops when it comes 
to authorizing war. We owe it to our military and to ourselves as a 
Nation to open this conversation on the authorization of military 
force, to provide our troops that clarity, and to abide by the 
Constitution that we have all sworn to protect.
  I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this 
resolution. I know it is a political time, but my attempt was to hew 
exactly to what our Founders intended.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The United States and our allies are safer with Qasem Soleimani gone. 
President Trump's decisive leadership was justified, and it was right.
  Soleimani had the blood of over 600 American servicemembers on his 
hands. For more than 20 years, he attacked our troops, established a 
brutal reign of terror across the Middle East, and was directly 
responsible for the death of thousands of innocent civilians, including 
in his own country. And he had more terror planned.
  As President Trump said, this strike was done to prevent a war, not 
start one. In yesterday's address, he was true to his word. He was 
confident and restrained. Even as he underscored our strength and 
resolve, he extended the people of Iran our hand in peace and 
friendship. President Trump's decision to embrace the Reagan doctrine 
of peace through strength in dealing with Iran has worked.
  Those who criticize President Trump for Iran's dangerous foreign 
policy should actually spend a few moments to review their history. It 
is Iran that is responsible for escalating tensions by creating chaos 
to spread fear and accumulate power.
  In the decades since 1979's revolution, Iran has become the number 
one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. More recently, it shot 
down an American military drone and seized a British oil tanker.
  On December 27, Iranian proxies crossed the line by killing an 
American. For the first time since 1988, we have an administration 
willing to strike back. From most of the media reports, many may know 
him only as an unnamed U.S. contractor killed in Iraq, but he was more 
than that. His name was Nawres Hamid. He was a husband. He was the 
father of two young sons. He was a resident of California.
  Before Nawres became a citizen, he was valiantly serving alongside 
our troops as a linguist. All of our hearts break for his wife and 
children, who are left mourning his death.
  There are some in this Chamber who seem to be downplaying his death, 
but his death matters. It matters to his family. It matters to his 
countrymen. It matters to the President. It matters to me. His death 
was unnecessary, unprovoked, and it deserved justice.
  That is why my next statement carries even more meaning. Red lines 
should mean something. In this administration, they do. Killing Nawres 
was a red line. Planning to kill Americans is a red line.
  I am confident that the right decision was to take out the man 
responsible for Nawres' death and the death of hundreds of other 
Americans.
  Iran responded earlier this week by sending missiles to U.S. bases in 
Iraq. I believe we are all relieved and grateful that there were no 
American casualties. Iran appears to be pulling back from its strategy 
of provocation in the face of firm American determination. Iran seems 
to understand that deescalation is right for them and the world.
  Now is the time for our country to come together and speak with one 
voice, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.

                              {time}  1500

  Instead of working with this administration to continue to work 
toward shared goals, Democrats are using this moment to continue their 
hatred toward the President.
  As my colleague and former CIA officer Will Hurd said, he never 
thought he would see the day that the Iranian Government would be able 
to manipulate Members of Congress, Democratic Presidential candidates, 
and the Western media, yet here we are on this floor today.
  If President Trump's instinct is to put America first, his critics' 
instinct is to blame America first.
  The words of my Democratic colleagues, including the Speaker of the 
House, blame the United States for attacks Iran has been initiating for 
the past four decades. Now, they want to limit the President's ability 
to defend America. That is just dangerous.
  I want to clear up some news, Madam Speaker, that I actually even 
recently heard on this floor. I would probably consider it fake news 
that Democrats have told the American people.
  Contrary to their claim, the resolution before the House today is 
nonbinding. It is called a concurrent resolution. This resolution, if 
passed, won't go to the President's desk for signature. It won't have 
the power of law.
  Madam Speaker, I heard the chairman try to claim that this had power. 
I know we have three coequal branches of government.
  Madam Speaker, I think the chairman should actually look at what the 
Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case, that concurrent resolutions are 
unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive branch. I think I 
may need to read it twice, so let's do that.
  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case that concurrent 
resolutions are unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive 
branch. The purpose of a concurrent resolution is to deal with mundane 
housekeeping matters in Congress.
  Now, I want everybody to know and understand what we have used 
concurrent resolutions for--it is very important: to authorize the use 
of the Capitol Grounds for the Soap Box Derby, to use the rotunda to 
present a congressional medal to Jack Nicklaus, and to host a birthday 
party in the Capitol Visitor Center. But the new majority decided to 
use it for something different.
  For a party that wants to claim they care about the Constitution, 
Madam Speaker, Democrats may want to brush up on their facts. If they 
did, they would realize their actions today are shameful and 
embarrassing, even by the low standards they set in their impeachment 
inquiry.
  They seem to have forgotten that we are not the House of Resolutions. 
We are, actually, the U.S. House of Representatives. Our job isn't to 
debate feelings. Our job isn't to make recommendations. We are, 
actually, elected to make law.
  But that is not how we are spending our time today. This resolution 
has as much force of law as a new year's resolution. It is nothing more 
than a press release to appease their socialist base.
  What message is it sending to Iran? That we are strong, determined, 
and united as a country, or that we are divided, shortsighted, and 
weak?
  Madam Speaker, ``In war, resolution,'' and, ``in peace, goodwill.'' 
Winston Churchill wrote those words after he led Britain to victory in 
the Second World War. They describe what he believed were the right 
actions for great leaders to take at history's defining moment.
  We should keep Churchill's words in mind today. President Trump 
clearly has. Because of President Trump's leadership, the United States 
and our allies are safer today than we were exactly 1 week ago.
  Petty politics are wrong for the country, especially now. Not liking 
President Trump is not an excuse for failing to see that the President 
and his administration have a sensible and deeply American strategy for 
dealing with Iran.
  Madam Speaker, I imagine we will continue to hear from other 
Democrats defending Iran for their escalation and the death of an 
American. Madam Speaker, I imagine that the Democrats will try to claim 
a concurrent resolution is more than a Soap Box Derby, but the Supreme 
Court says otherwise.

[[Page H96]]

  Madam Speaker, I imagine I will hear a lot from the Democrats today. 
I would like to hear a Democrat speak to the 600 Gold Star families 
whose loved ones were killed by Soleimani. I would like to hear them 
defend that.
  I would like to hear them defend Iran and their actions of burning an 
embassy, of killing an American, of killing thousands of civilians even 
in their own country. But they are going to take our time today with 
something that means nothing.
  Yes, they will run to the mikes. They will get on TV. They will tell 
a little more fake news, that it meant something today.
  The only thing that will happen today is it will make Iran believe 
they are stronger. It will make Iran believe they have allies in the 
House of Representatives.
  Today is a day that we will not be proud of.
  Madam Speaker, in light of the information that we have coming out of 
Iran, if it is true, of why an airliner was shot down, if that was the 
case, I would like to see a Democrat move to the floor and pull this 
concurrent resolution. If it means nothing else, I think we should have 
all the facts.
  I look forward to listening, Madam Speaker, to any Democrat who wants 
to speak to the Gold Star families about why they want to have a debate 
today and tell them that ``Soleimani is bad, but.'' It is not ``but''; 
it is ``because,'' because he killed Americans, because he killed 
thousands of civilians. That is why he was taken out, and the world is 
safer because of it.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the defense from the other 
side.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the Republican leader is 
casting aspersions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle takes 
this seriously and has reasons for what we are voting on.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna), a gentleman who has been very involved in 
these issues for a long, long time and has been a real leader in these 
issues.

  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel for yielding and 
for his leadership.
  I rise today not as a partisan but as someone concerned about 
America's future.
  We have worked across the aisle with people like Representative 
Meadows and others to stop our country from getting into endless wars. 
There is not one party that wants to stop these wars; this is in our 
national interest.
  Now, let's be very clear. Soleimani had blood on his hands. Soleimani 
was a bad actor. Soleimani killed Americans. That is not the debate.
  The debate is whether America should get into another war in the 
Middle East or whether we should be focused on our real competition, 
which is China.
  We are 21 percent of the world's GDP. China, our competition for the 
21st century, is 15 percent. Iran is 0.44 percent of GDP.
  China hasn't been in a war since 1979. We are in 40 conflicts.
  Future historians will ask why we were so obsessed with a region, the 
Middle East, with 3.5 percent of GDP, when we should have been focused 
on investing in our country to build the future, to win the 21st 
century.
  I don't think staying out of bad wars that cost this country 
trillions of dollars is a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. 
Frankly, the President ran on this.
  I know Leader McCarthy says this is a formality. Under the War Powers 
Act, you are supposed to have a concurrent resolution.
  My hope is the President will agree with this and not get us into a 
war with Iran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I will make my final point. This shouldn't be partisan.
  Here is what I would love to see, that the President says, in the 
future action, he is not going to get into a war and that he agrees 
with the concurrent resolution that this body passes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution, which curtails the President's authority to protect 
American interests in the Middle East.
  Two weeks ago, Iranian proxies launched a missile attack on American 
forces in Iraq. This was the 11th such rocket attack by the Iranians in 
recent months. This time, as our leader said, it killed Nawres Hamid, 
who was a husband, a father, a contractor, and an American citizen.
  The man behind this attack and additional attacks that were being 
planned and that were imminent was the terrorist mastermind Qasem 
Soleimani, who was responsible for the deaths, as we have heard, of at 
least 600, probably many more, Americans and for thousands of others in 
that part of the world, and for causing destabilization throughout the 
entire region.
  For years now, Soleimani had been leading Iran's shadow war against 
us and against our allies. In targeting Soleimani, President Trump took 
bold, long-overdue action, and he ought to be supported for this 
decision, not criticized.
  This resolution, by condemning even limited military force and 
limited action, would essentially tie the President's hands behind his 
back as he tries to counter Iran's shadow campaign against us.
  Madam Speaker, it makes no sense, this resolution, and I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose it and vote against it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, America is not safe or safer because 
of the acts that occurred local time on January 3, 2020.
  America is in more jeopardy, as are our brave men and women in the 
United States military, whom we hold in the highest esteem and say to 
their families: We are obligated and committed to honoring and thanking 
you, but to also recognizing, when we send you into battle, there would 
and should be the consultation, the engagement, the understanding of 
the intelligence and the work between Article I, the United States 
Congress, and Article II, the President of the United States.
  I will not allow any Member of Congress to malign my Gold Star 
families or to suggest that any Member here does not respect the 
ultimate sacrifice that their family members took. Family members who 
are Gold Star should not be used in a political debate. They should 
only be honored.
  And I will not accept anyone describing Democrats as mourning 
terrorists.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, what I will say is that nothing in 
this resolution speaks to any named person. It says that this body, 
this Congress, must adhere to its duty to be able to ensure that the 
President of the United States does not unilaterally take us into war 
with Iran. We will not stand for it.
  It does, as well, say that my resolution in 2002 indicated that we 
should not have gone to war in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the 
Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member serving in this body on 
September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful and tragic war in Iraq, 
and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
83, a concurrent resolution directing the President to terminate the 
engagement of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against 
Iran.
  l thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, 
for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair 
Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution.
  I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the 
House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the 
American people safe by limiting the President from taking further 
precipitous military actions regarding Iran.
  We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that 
while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is 
the nation that goes to war.
  And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and 
take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but 
through Article I, Section, clause 11

[[Page H97]]

in the collective judgment of Congress, the representatives of the 
American people.
  It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to 
self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the 
right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad.
  But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must 
inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a 
certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the 
window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future 
disastrous attacks against the United States.
  Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a 
position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action.
  Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L. 
93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged 
in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its 
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific 
statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President 
if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.''
  The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020, local time by 
the President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's 
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major 
architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important 
question of why the action was taken at that time.
  Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or 
been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action 
was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the 
United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel.
  The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns 
of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the 
killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the 
product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after 
extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding 
the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and 
our nation and its people.
  Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the 
hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation 
and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether 
there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does 
not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the 
United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East 
placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons.
  Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the 
Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al 
Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian 
civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw 
the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently 
demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country.
  Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been 
suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to 
assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and bore 
responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by 
Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq.
  Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran, 
the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the 
Middle East.
  But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a 
high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to 
the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
  In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of 
Iran.
  It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by 
American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at 
risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in 
the region and across the globe.
  It must be remembered that the United States has national interests 
in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the 
region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic State 
of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear 
weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other 
countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government 
corruption and violations of basic human rights.
  For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in 
place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for 
managing disputes with Iran.
  That does not appear to be the case.
  There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress 
or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our 
allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a 
working and well-functioning national security council apparatus.
  This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle 
East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the 
Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.''
  Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh 
retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the 
action taken by the Administration.
  It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to 
counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure 
to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to 
protect the security of the homeland.
  The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has 
the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political 
leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke 
Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir 
presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914.
  One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but 
so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The 
Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes 
result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are 
overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill-
founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political 
backlash warfare.
  Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into 
harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in 
the Congress and the President.
  Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the 
decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and 
otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in 
secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national 
security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide 
requested information.
  The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when 
to use military force to protect the Nation and its interests between 
the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American 
people.
  The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003 
and continuing to this day has taught this Nation the importance of 
having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use 
military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting 
precipitously or unwisely.
  We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake.
  That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the 
concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to 
terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage 
in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or 
military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific 
statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of 
the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an 
imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or 
possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of 
the War Powers Resolution.
  Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of 
the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United 
States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be 
employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and safety in 
America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be placed at 
risk.
  Madam Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound 
question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international 
relations in the 21st century. Before us today is the serious and 
fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress 
will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war.
  Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is 
further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new 
foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a 
unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have 
utilized our diplomatic options.
  My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal 
is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It 
provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the 
American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of 
mass destruction.
  The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic 
process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any 
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections 
and enhanced containment.
  It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term 
consequences for the United States of codifying the President's 
announced doctrine of preemption.
  The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before 
we have even tried to pursue them.

[[Page H98]]

  We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what 
we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its 
people, we do not need this resolution.
  If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, 
the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our 
defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United 
Nations Charter.
  Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little 
chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. 
forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become 
much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This 
is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires 
sober thought and careful reflection.
  President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, 
the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It 
will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
  Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries 
maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? 
China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?
  I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge 
other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This 
approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces 
of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for 
peace in the region.
  Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 
are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we 
should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast 
commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we 
move into the 21st century.
  As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations 
do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a 
chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in 
eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam 
Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors 
destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of 
mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process. In 
addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an 
enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials 
or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance technology 
on the border to detect such materials.
  As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries 
bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations 
Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in 
the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on 
nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
  All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake 
and which can lead to success.
  What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century 
international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism 
and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our 
choice.
  During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. 
They still should.
  I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is 
contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a 
terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global 
stability and for our own moral authority.
  We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where 
they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as 
representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action 
will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of 
lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have 
choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give 
U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work. What this 
resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States 
will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other 
diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, 
and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national 
interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.
  I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United 
Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, this week, universally 
respected Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, provided an extraordinary 
op-ed in The Wall Street Journal: ``President Trump's order to take out 
Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally, and strategically 
correct. . . . No American can dispute that Soleimani created, 
supported, and directed a network of terrorist organizations that 
spread havoc in the Middle East.'' In Syria, ``more than 500,000 
Syrians have died.''
  ``During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran.'' These 
trained fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers.
  The claim that President Trump ``had no authority to order this 
attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and 
practically senseless. . . . Democrats should leave partisan politics 
at `the water's edge' and . . . stand together against Iran and 
dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.''
  Senator Joe Lieberman tells the truth. We must resist: ``Death to 
America,'' ``Death to Israel.''
  I extend our sympathies to the family of Nawres Hamid, an Iraqi 
American Muslim from California, who was murdered by Soleimani-financed 
terrorists 13 days ago.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a valuable member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 83, 
directing the President to cease military hostilities against Iran.
  Last week, President Trump ordered a provocative and disproportionate 
drone strike, killing Quds Force commander Major General Qasem 
Soleimani.
  Soleimani was a malign actor who masterminded the killings of many 
U.S. soldiers, but assassinating him has unleashed the dogs of war. 
Iran launched a dozen ballistic missiles against two U.S. military 
bases in Iraq, and we must be prepared for further Iranian retaliation.
  These threats stem from the President's fateful and reckless decision 
to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, a deal that was working by 
every measure, leaving us with no leverage and Iran with nothing to 
lose.
  We don't need another war. Peace demands action now. That is why 
Congress must reassert its solemn constitutional duty under Article I 
to decide when and where the United States goes to war. This resolution 
does just that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, on Tuesday night, Iran launched at least a dozen 
ballistic missiles against two U.S. military bases in Iraq.
  Thankfully, there were no American casualties, but I remain concerned 
about further Iranian retaliation.
  These attacks come after President Trump ordered a drone strike that 
assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qasem 
Soleimani.
  Soleimani was a bad actor and masterminded the killings of many U.S. 
soldiers in Iraq and Lebanon. He will not be missed.
  But killing Soleimani was supposed to make us safer. In reality, the 
President's order has unleashed the dogs of war.
  What is unfolding now is the result of the Trump Administration's 
incoherent foreign policy, stemming from its fateful and reckless 
decision to withdraw the United States from our own agreement, the Iran 
nuclear deal.
  By all accounts, prior to our withdrawal, Iran was in compliance with 
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
  It was only after our withdrawal, and re-imposition of sanctions 
lifted under the agreement, that Iran began to exceed its stockpile of 
low-enriched uranium, and then resume uranium enrichment.
  Following the Soleimani strike, Iran has vowed to ignore all 
restrictions set by the nuclear deal. This move has set in motion the 
very thing we were seeking to avoid--a nuclear-armed Iran.
  Our abrogation of the Iran nuclear agreement leaves us with no 
leverage and Iran with nothing to lose.
  Iran and its proxy forces have engaged in a series of retaliatory 
actions: attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, downing an 
American drone in international waters, cruise missile attacks against 
Saudi oil plants, and rocket attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.
  Secretary of State Pompeo claimed, ``The world is a much safer place, 
and I can assure you, Americans in the region are much safer after the 
demise of Qasem Soleimani.''
  And yet, in the wake of Soleimani's killing, the State Department has 
urged Americans to leave Iraq immediately whether by air or by land, 
and put Americans in the region on high alert.
  Two years ago, I warned that we were sleepwalking into an armed 
conflict. That the hidden scandal of the Iraq War--the manipulation of 
intelligence to support a predetermined

[[Page H99]]

outcome--was now an overt political strategy to undermine the Iran 
nuclear deal.
  I fear now that these steps have brought us to the brink of war with 
Iran.
  According to Pompeo, ``this was an intelligence-based assessment that 
drove our decision-making process.''
  Yet, when asked about the imminent threat facing Americans from 
Soleimani, Pompeo pointed to a previous attack in Iraq that killed an 
American contractor and injured four servicemembers, not a new, 
imminent threat.
  Yesterday, the Trump Administration offered a sophomoric and utterly 
unconvincing briefing to members of Congress on the strike's rationale.
  President Trump's decision to assassinate Soleimani was provocative 
and disproportionate and has endangered American lives and the security 
of the region.
  We don't need another war. Peace demands action now.
  That is why Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to 
decide when and where the United States goes to war.
  Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that 
``Congress shall have power . . . to declare war . . . and to raise and 
support armies'' and other armed forces.
  And today the House of Representatives will make clear that Congress 
has not authorized President Trump to go to war with Iran.
  Neither the 2001 nor the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military 
Force (AUMF) authorize the President to attack Iran or its senior 
officials.
  I urge my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to support this 
war powers resolution, and reclaim our solemn constitutional duty to 
determine when the United States puts our uniformed men and women in 
harm's way.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  This resolution is insincere and unserious. If my colleagues on the 
other side really want to limit the President's ability to defend the 
United States, then they ought to take the vote and limit him and stand 
for that vote.
  Now, if you are not familiar with terrorist Soleimani, let me just 
acquaint you.
  His reign of terror for Americans started with 241 marines in Beirut, 
Lebanon. He and his organization continued on to the Khobar Towers, 
hundreds and hundreds of Americans dead by IEDs and thousands maimed. A 
servicemember from Pennsylvania incinerated--incinerated--in the 
vehicle that he was in.
  Thank you terrorist Soleimani.
  The President does not desire war with Iran or anyone else, but Iran 
has been fighting us since 1979.
  I have got a news flash for everybody: They have been at war with the 
United States since they punched us in the face in 1979.
  Washington has been appeasing Iran, and the policy of appeasement has 
been getting Americans killed since 1979.
  542, that is the number of drone attacks under the Obama 
administration in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan.
  Oh, by the way, not the theatre of war for the United States. Not a 
peep, Madam Speaker, not a peep from the other side.
  The terrorist state of Iran cannot continue killing Americans and 
cannot have a nuclear bomb. Madam Speaker, it is time to stand up for 
America and Americans, including this President.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), a longtime valued member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, this resolution imposes extraordinary 
restrictions on this President, an extraordinary President who needs 
extraordinary restrictions.
  This is best exemplified by the President's gratuitous comment that 
he would hit cultural sites in Iran. Not only is that a war crime, but 
it is a mistake because it drives the Iranian people toward the regime 
while alienating our European allies whose support for our sanctions is 
critical for them to work.
  The minority leader came to this floor and said Democrats were dupes 
of the Islamic Republic. I will compare my record of efforts against 
the Islamic Republic of Iran with those of any other Member.
  You could argue whether Soleimani's death makes us safer or not over 
the next few months. We have removed a terrorist mastermind from the 
battlefield, but we have inspired the other terrorists.
  The real issue is the effect on Iran's program. That program is more 
robust today than it was a week ago, as Iran has employed more 
centrifuges and is building a larger stockpile, all without our 
European friends, who are still in the JCPOA taking any action against 
Iran.
  There was no policy process on the golf course where the President 
made this decision. He heard not from a single expert on Iranian 
politics, religion, or the economy.
  Our maximum pressure campaign is designed to put such pressure on the 
Iranian people that they choose not to endure it, but demand that the 
nuclear program be scaled back or ended, or that the regime that has 
that program be swept away.
  This assassination undercuts that effort by building support for the 
regime and its nuclear program with most of the Iranian people by 
making Soleimani a martyr in front of a Shiite population, a Shiite 
religion that lionizes martyrdom, we increase the likelihood of an 
Iranian nuclear weapon.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlemen 
from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. I rise in total support of the decision to remove Qasem 
Soleimani.
  I have heard the use of the word ``disproportionate'' from the 
Speaker. I have heard it here today on the House floor, and it is just 
a shocking word to be used to describe what took place. It makes me ask 
the question: At what point is it proportionate to take out a 
designated terrorist who kills 600 U.S. troops, wounds thousands of 
others, kills and wounds troops recently, and his proxies attack a U.S. 
Embassy?
  If anyone has any doubt as to what Qasem Soleimani was doing in Iraq 
at the time we took him out, you can look at the IRGC's own words. The 
IRGC put out a statement saying that Soleimani and companions were on 
their way to ``plan a confrontation against the new scheme of the 
Americans to rebuild Daesh and the Takfiri groups in order to again 
disrupt Iraq's security.''
  Who needs an intelligence briefing to determine that this is totally 
legitimate?
  On behalf of all of those Gold Star families and all the Blue Star 
families, of anyone who is deployed now, anyone who is in harm's way, 
if you need proof, go to Walter Reed. If you need proof, sit down with 
some of these Gold Star families who lost their sons, their daughters, 
their fathers, their mothers, their brothers, and their sisters because 
of this designated foreign terrorist running a designated foreign 
terrorist organization, who was sanctioned by the United States, by EU, 
and by the United Nations.
  I say good riddance.
  Why are we having this debate? We should be coming together, not as 
Republicans first, not as Democrats first. We should be coming together 
as Americans first and voting this down.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this resolution sponsored by my good friend from Michigan, 
Congresswoman Slotkin.
  The Trump administration's foreign policy failures have brought us to 
the brink of war. The administration has provided no evidence to 
demonstrate what imminent threat made Qasem Soleimani's assassination 
and the perilous, predictable fallout necessary. But they have 
demonstrated a shocking dismissiveness as to what is at stake.
  On the threat of retaliation from Iran, Secretary Pompeo said it may 
be that there is a little noise here in the interim. President Trump 
said, if it happens, it happens.
  To the parents who are worried sick about their kids serving in the 
Middle East, it isn't a little noise. Their children's lives are at 
stake. Those stakes make today's vote necessary.
  The question before us is simple. Can we let this President drag us 
into another war that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars and, most 
importantly,

[[Page H100]]

American lives? Will we at long last stand up and fulfill our 
constitutional duty to make decisions on war and peace?
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Democrats' dangerous resolution to undermine our national defense and 
allow unchecked Iranian aggression against the United States and our 
allies.
  This resolution intends to cripple our ability to protect American 
soldiers serving in the Middle East and attempts to forbid the use of 
force against Iran, even if they are attacking Americans.
  I am shocked and saddened by the partisanship of this Chamber. I was 
proud when former President Obama succeeded in his decision to kill 
Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. I am proud that President Trump ended 
Qasem Soleimani's brutal reign of terror that killed and maimed 
countless Americans and coalition forces and threatened many more to 
come.
  But, instead of uniting behind the President's defensive position to 
strike one of the world's most powerful terrorists who was organizing 
attacks against Americans in Iraq, instead, many Democrats are arguing 
that the American President himself is guilty of aggression and 
escalation. This, Madam Speaker, is unconscionable.
  These are pictures from the Military Times showing the assault and 
the burning of our Embassy in Baghdad.
  I agree with the President that attacking Americans is never 
acceptable and Iran should be held to account. When American lives hang 
in the balance, Article II of the Constitution empowers the President 
to use force to protect and defend our country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious, 
partisan farce.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, the chair of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, 
and the Environment.
  Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, today we debate much more than the words 
on parchment that define our congressional responsibility.
  Long before I knew this legal responsibility, I learned the moral 
responsibility inherent to what must be the most sober and deliberate 
decision we can humanly muster.
  As a young boy, indelibly etched in my mind is the conversation with 
my grandmother the day she pulled a box out from underneath her bed, 
reverently handing me the medals and final belongings of my uncle who 
was killed in action and telling me about her lost son. I wondered then 
what was so important to justify such a loss and what my uncle must 
have been thinking about.

  That day carried with me as I traveled to Iraq as a newly elected 
Congressman to visit our troops during a time of war. I remember having 
a conversation with a young marine. I asked him his personal thoughts 
about the goals of the war, what he thought, did he think it was 
justified. He told me: ``With all due respect, sir, that is your job. 
My job is to serve.''
  He was right. It is our job. That is why we are debating this, and 
that is why I am supporting this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the distinguished Republican Conference chair.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, the measure before us is an 
unconstitutional political stunt meant to undermine the President of 
the United States. It will not become law, but it will embolden Iran.
  The Speaker and my colleagues who support this resolution ought to 
admit to the American people what they are doing, that is, undermining 
United States defense policy towards Iran.
  Qasem Soleimani, the lead architect and overseer of Iran's web of 
terror is dead. This terrorist was responsible for the deaths of 
hundreds of American servicemembers, the killing of an American citizen 
in Iraq just 2 weeks ago, and the recent assaults against our Embassy 
in Baghdad. He was engaged in planning for further deadly attacks.
  But the Democrats in this body are so consumed by their hatred of 
President Trump that they will not even stand with him in support of 
the killing of the world's deadliest terrorist.

                              {time}  1530

  Instead, they have suggested a moral equivalence between the United 
States and Iran. The Speaker of the House even blamed America, 
describing the killing of Soleimani as ``an unnecessary provocation.''
  Madam Speaker, what is a provocation is the introduction of this 
resolution, which shows doubt about American resolve. It makes war 
more, not less likely.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand united as Americans--to 
put partisan stunts aside--and to oppose this dangerous resolution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, this administration says starving the 
Iranian economy is in defense of human rights, when it is an abuse of 
them; and that their withdrawal from the nuclear deal was a 
demonstration of American leadership, when it was an abandonment of it.
  Escalation is deescalation, and war is peace.
  In fact, they are asking us to deny reality. The reality is that 
families of American soldiers and diplomats are being kept awake at 
night worrying.
  The Iraqi people who suffered decades of unjust war are now unjustly 
suffering as their country becomes a battleground in a proxy war.
  The Iranian people have suffered because of maximum pressure and will 
suffer because of this escalation.
  John Quincy Adams said:

       America goes not abroad in search of monsters. America's 
     glory is not dominion, but liberty.

  This administration has gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy. 
May God show us the way to freedom, independence, and peace.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, make no mistake, this resolution is about 
the killing of Soleimani. He was a terrorist, no different than al-
Baghdadi, then al-Zarqawi, then Osama bin Laden, then Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed. He was the head of a designated terrorist organization no 
different than ISIS or al-Qaida.
  He was responsible for the deaths of our men and women--and I know 
most in here haven't seen or smelled or touched that kind of death, but 
let me tell you about it. They were burned alive inside of their 
Humvees. Their lungs were scorched by the flames of the explosions.
  The vehicle fragments were blown into their skulls. Some of them were 
paralyzed. Some of them had their arms blown off. Some of them had 
their legs blown off. Some of them will never see again. Some of them 
will never be recognized again by those who knew them previously.
  Each and every one of them, they are the credible explanation for 
deleting this terrorist target from our world.
  And no doubt, it is dangerous to take out a terrorist target, but a 
coward is somebody who lacks the courage to endure danger. This is the 
fundamental difference in voting ``yes'' or ``no'' here.
  If you vote ``no,'' you understand that we would be justified to kill 
100 Soleimanis for just one of our heroes who have been killed by him. 
The danger would be worth it.
  For those who vote ``yes,'' they see that he has killed hundreds of 
our servicemembers but can still not find the justification to kill him 
because, unlike our fallen heroes, they lack the courage to endure 
danger.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Trone), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. TRONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to an 
unnecessary war with Iran in support of this resolution.
  Today, the question before us is: Are the American people more safe 
or less safe after the killing of Qasem Soleimani?

[[Page H101]]

  As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have significant 
concerns about the administration's inability to answer this question 
and communicate a coherent strategy to avoid war and keep us safe.
  The American people have seen no evidence that killing Soleimani was 
a result of an imminent threat; no evidence of a discernible political 
plan for our policy toward Iran moving forward.
  Questions of war and peace are the most fundamental of the issues 
that come before this Congress. They require deliberate and thoughtful 
decisionmaking. This action by the administration was not that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I never thought that I would hear on this House floor an apology to 
the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified, 
taking out a terrorist. I cannot believe it.
  And, yet, we just heard that on this House floor. We have a gentleman 
who gave his legs in service to this country and, yet, we are 
apologizing to the Iranians with a nonbinding resolution that is 
nothing more than a press release, Madam Speaker. It has no effect. It 
doesn't do anything. In fact, the Supreme Court says that. They know 
that.
  All they are doing is trying to get a press release to keep them from 
having a primary opponent. This is a sad, sad day. And, yet, here we 
are, having another speech to try to take on the President of the 
United States for actually taking out a terrorist.
  I would ask my colleagues opposite: How many Americans does a 
terrorist have to kill before they join with us? Is 600 not enough? 
Does it have to be 1,000, 10,000, a million? At some point we have to 
stand up and let the long arm of justice go in and take out these 
terrorists.
  I am here to tell you today that this nonbinding resolution, indeed, 
they want to talk about their constitutional requirement, well, check 
with the Supreme Court. In 1983, they ruled that this has no effect. At 
least our Senators opposite, they know that. It has to be a joint 
resolution.

  And, yet, what is this vehicle normally designed for? For Soap Box 
Derbies. Well, at least that accomplishes something. All this does is 
emboldens our enemies to suggest that the American people are divided.
  But I am here to tell you that we are not divided. We are a safer 
country because of the actions of this President, the decisive actions 
of this President and our military.
  More important than that, this War Powers Act that got passed, it was 
a message that came out of a difficult time. But I want the message to 
be clear today. We are standing behind our military men and women. We 
have their back, and we will not yield.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, let me remind my friend that we, too, 
cherish our military and also have their backs.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and 
Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of this resolution. Congress has constitutional authority when 
it comes to one of the most important decisions any of us can make: to 
send our brave men and women of the Armed Forces into harm's way in 
service of our country.
  Recent events demonstrate just how important this congressional role 
is. When the President decided to strike a high-level Iranian official, 
he made a decision that was provocative in the strongest sense of the 
word. He did that without any meaningful congressional consultation.
  The information that we have received is woefully insufficient, 
including the notification and the briefing provided by senior 
officials yesterday.
  Congress and the American people have no assurance that the President 
is acting as part of a well-thought-out strategy that makes Americans 
safer rather than sets us on a war path.
  I am deeply opposed to an unauthorized war with Iran. That is why I 
support this resolution, which reiterates that only Congress can 
declare war and that we have not done so here.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this dangerous resolution. 
Iran has been at war with us for 40 years. They held Americans hostage 
in Tehran. They murdered our marines in Beirut. They killed hundreds, 
if not thousands, of American servicemembers in Iraq.
  In recent months, Iran shot down a U.S. drone, they killed an 
American citizen, and they organized an attack on our embassy.
  So let's be clear: General Soleimani was the mastermind behind these 
attacks. Soleimani was in Iraq claiming imminent attacks on our 
servicemembers, our diplomats, and our Iraqi allies.
  Soleimani was an enemy combatant and a lawful target. As a Navy JAG, 
I prosecuted terrorists in Iraq. I was actually stationed right across 
from our embassy in Baghdad, and I witnessed these threats on our Armed 
Forces. So I applaud President Trump, I applaud our warfighters, and I 
applaud our intelligence community for reaching an incredible outcome 
against Iran.
  Soleimani's death was a win for America, for freedom, and for peace. 
In supporting this resolution, Democrats are choosing to stand with 
their far-left radical base rather than standing up against Iran.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to 
declare war.
  This was not a matter of great controversy among the Founders, 
because going to war is the most portentous decision that a nation can 
make. And in our democracy, it is a decision to be undertaken by the 
people through the Congress, and not by one person.
  We are all enormously grateful that no U.S. personnel were killed in 
Iran's missile strikes, and I hope that the President will take 
advantage of the momentary calm to deescalate the situation.
  But we cannot assume peace will hold indefinitely because of the 
impulsive actions of this President which have so often brought us to 
the brink of war.
  Qasem Soleimani was a malign force responsible for the death of many 
Americans, but after the briefings I have received, I have no 
confidence that there is some broad strategy at work, or that the 
policies of the President are doing anything but increasing the dangers 
to the American people.
  That is a recipe for disaster, one which increases the likelihood of 
stumbling into a war that the American people do not want and Congress 
has not authorized.
  The resolution before the House today is a step toward reasserting 
our constitutional duty to rein in a President whose unilateral actions 
have isolated us from our allies, increased the risk of a nuclear-armed 
Iran, and made us less safe.
  Finally, I hope the vote today is the first of a broader reassertion 
of Congress' war powers including the sunset or repeal of the 2001 and 
2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force which have been stretched 
beyond recognition.
  It is past time for Congress to do our job and not simply write the 
executive a blank check. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins).
  Mr. WATKINS. Madam Speaker, I spent somewhere around 8\1/2\ years in 
conflict environments and post-conflict environments between Iraq and 
Afghanistan. And all that time I knew many people who suffered at the 
hands of Qasem Soleimani.
  One in particular takes me back to 2006 or 2007. I was smoking and 
joking at the embassy in Baghdad. I was doing so with a friend--really 
a brother, a West Point classmate--who shortly thereafter went out on a 
mission and was ultimately killed in a complex attack perpetrated by 
Qasem Soleimani.

[[Page H102]]

  I understand that action leads to risk, but inaction leads to more 
risk in the long run. And when searching for this divine strategy, look 
to what tactical operators know to be true, and that is, when we go 
throughout our work on the ground with the assault rifle in one hand, a 
sat phone in the other, we need to know that should anything happen to 
us, our President is going to have the freedom to rain fire down upon 
our enemies, and I am thankful for that.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), an esteemed member the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Without a coherent strategy, such actions as the recent ones that 
occurred in Iraq present a dangerous move toward the United States' 
engaging in a war that the American people do not want.
  Today, we move to reclaim power that the executive branch has tried 
to usurp from Congress. We assert our constitutional authority to 
determine if the country ought to go to war, and we send a message loud 
and clear that we do not want to go to war.
  We will not engage in reckless hostilities to endanger American 
lives, American interests, and our American values without fully 
evaluating imminent threat. We must continue to assert that, without 
new authorizations from Congress, this administration cannot engage in 
offensive military actions. That is what our Framers intended.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hurd), who is a former CIA officer.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Madam Speaker, right now is not the time for a 
partisan exercise that could be used as propaganda by the ayatollahs. 
Instead, Congress should be united in condemning a regime that has been 
attacking America and our allies for 40 years.
  Qasem Soleimani was the head of the most dangerous and well-armed 
terrorist organization in the world, and his death has removed a major 
terrorist leader off the battlefield. This decision followed repeated 
rocket attacks by Iranian proxies on American forces and an attempt to 
storm our embassy in Baghdad.
  This decision was based on intelligence that our Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff has described as compelling, imminent, and very 
clear, as Soleimani was planning attacks against our troops. This is an 
assessment with which I concur.
  No one wants another war in the Middle East. Instead of tying the 
hands of our military, we should be sending a strong message to the 
Iranian regime that there will be consequences for their reign of 
terror, and we will protect our citizens at all costs.
  The Iranian regime has killed over 600 American troops in Iraq. They 
have killed over 1,500 of their own people for peacefully protesting. 
They have lied to the world about their nuclear arsenal.
  Appeasing them will only make future conflict and bloodshed more 
likely. That is why I wish today, instead of this partisan exercise, 
that we were sending to the Government of Iran a clearer message that 
no elected official in America is supportive of its behavior.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, President Bush's invasion of Iraq was the 
first foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States based 
on fake intelligence, and President Trump took us to the brink of war 
with Iran with an impulsive act at the end of last week that would be 
even more disastrous than the war with Iraq, which is still 
reverberating throughout the region.
  Some on that side say: Oh, you are not with the troops; you are 
apologizing.
  No, we are not. We are reasserting the constitutional duty that we 
are sworn to in this House of Representatives. Congress and only 
Congress can declare war. Once we have declared war, then the President 
of the United States as Commander in Chief can conduct it, as much as 
this gentleman could.
  This is just a step. We need to repeal the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force against Iraq based on fake intelligence because that was 
his lawyer's rationalization of why they could do this in Iraq, a 
sovereign nation, without their permission.
  We also have to reform the War Powers Act because the War Powers Act 
itself does not reflect our constitutional authority.
  Finally, we have to pass an amendment to prohibit a hostile action 
against Iran without authority from Congress.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  Mr. BACON. Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution that is designed 
to embarrass our President in front of the world and, in reality, gives 
comfort to Iran's leadership. It weakens America and emboldens our 
enemies.
  This resolution is not needed. The War Powers Act is still in effect, 
and the President is not conducting combat operations against Iran. He 
wants deescalation; he does not want war.
  He is not doing what President Obama did in Libya. What the President 
did was a onetime defensive operation, when he targeted General 
Soleimani.
  Let us be clear: Soleimani murdered 609 Americans in Iraq. His 
proxies attacked our embassy, and the Quds Force he commanded shed 
blood across the world. He even attempted terrorism right here in 
Washington, D.C. He was the number one threat to Israel, and he was 
anti-Semitism personified.
  I knew who Soleimani was when I was in Iraq. We were targeted by 
rockets every single day from Iranian proxies trained in, funded by, 
and armed by Iran and sometimes led by Iranian commanders, and fellow 
Americans died.
  The targeting of Soleimani is justice for the 609 families who had a 
son or daughter murdered by this guy and the thousands missing an arm 
or a leg because of his savagery.
  In bringing up this resolution, the Speaker said that our targeting 
of Soleimani was disproportionate. It is disgusting. This guy killed 
609 Americans in Iraq alone. He was the mastermind.
  Does it take 100 more? 200 more? 300 more? It is vile.
  Our strike was also defensive. General Milley said that he saw some 
of the best intelligence he has ever seen and that it clearly showed 
Soleimani was in Baghdad, planning an imminent attack on Americans. To 
deny this is to call General Milley a liar.
  This resolution weakens America and gives hope to the Ayatollah that 
we don't have the resolve to stand up to these attacks. A house divided 
will not stand. I pray wise leadership prevails and that we unify to 
oppose Iranian terror that murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), who has worked very hard on these issues for many 
years.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding and also for his tremendous leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83. This 
critical resolution helps put a check on this administration's reckless 
and irrational unauthorized military actions against Iran.
  The American people do not want, and we cannot allow, another 
unnecessary war of choice in the Middle East. This resolution is an 
important step in our efforts to prevent that from happening. This will 
restore our constitutional duty over military action.
  Also, we must take up my bill, H.R. 2456, to repeal the 2002 AUMF and 
Congressman Khanna's bill to prohibit any funds for a war with Iran, 
absent an explicit authorization. My 2002 AUMF amendment was included 
with bipartisan support in the House and passed in the 2020 NDAA bill, 
but it was stripped by Republicans from the final bill. Now, I know 
why.
  Madam Speaker, this administration has falsely claimed that the 2002 
AUMF could be used as a congressional authorization to attack Iran, 
which is completely outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H103]]

  

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me be clear: U.S. military 
deployment and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF 
officially concluded in 2011. Maintaining this authorization is not 
only dangerous, but it is irresponsible.
  Madam Speaker, it is past time to return to diplomacy and end these 
endless wars, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on H. Con. Res. 83.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), who is a Marine veteran of the Persian 
Gulf war and a current member of the Mississippi National Guard.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
resolution.
  Let's be clear with the American people: Democrats wrote this bill 
before being briefed by senior intelligence officials on the strike 
that eliminated Soleimani, a well-known terrorist.
  At the end of the day, we all know that this man was responsible for 
the death of thousands of individuals, including over 600 American 
servicemembers. President Trump was absolutely right to respond and 
acted within his constitutional authority to protect American citizens. 
He owes no one an apology. Feelings can be healed, but dead Americans 
cannot be resurrected.
  My question for those on the other side of the aisle who are hellbent 
on undermining this President over political differences is: How many 
more Americans did you want to die before President Trump acted?
  Let's reflect. President Obama authorized over 540 drone strikes, 
killing over 3,700 people and more than 320 civilians. Not a single one 
was authorized by Congress.
  As a veteran and member of our United States military, I am ashamed 
of the behavior I am witnessing now. Our military deserves better, and 
so do the American people. During a time when our country should unite 
behind our Commander in Chief, this resolution turns us against 
ourselves. I support our men and women in uniform and hope my 
colleagues on the left will come to their senses to do the same.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), who is a distinguished member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel for 
his leadership.
  I previously served in Active Duty in the United States military, and 
if we are going to put our troops in harm's way, we better have a 
strategy. Unfortunately, we don't have a strategy from the Trump 
administration. We just have reckless and impulsive decisionmaking by 
the President.
  Let me just ask a very simple question: What are our goals with Iran?
  Is it to get them to come back to the negotiating table on the 
nuclear program? Well, we are further away from that goal now because 
they have announced they are no longer going to abide by limits on the 
nuclear program.
  Is the goal to get the regime to collapse? We are further from that 
goal, too, because the Iranian people who previously were protesting 
their government are rallying behind their leadership.
  Or is the goal to work with our allies to contain Iran? Well, we are 
further away from that goal, too, because the Iraqi parliament just 
voted to kick us out of their country.
  Madam Speaker, we are less safe than we were a week ago. Vote ``yes'' 
on this bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, many of the senior leadership on the other 
side of the aisle voted for the 2002 AUMF on Iraq, including the 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the majority leader, and the 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The AUMF in 2002 gave this President every bit of authority he needed 
to go after a terrorist in Iraq. In fact, the terrorist that he killed, 
Soleimani, was designated under Barack Obama Executive Order No. 13224 
as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in 2011.
  Where was the outrage when President Obama was using the same AUMF as 
justification for dropping bombs in countries like Yemen or Syria, or 
violating the sovereign airspace of Pakistan, which we all agreed with, 
but violated the airspace of Pakistan to go in and kill Osama bin 
Laden?

  We were fine with that. This is a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist who deserved death after he was responsible for 600-plus 
American deaths, atrocious and abysmal acts.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, there are two times we are going to be 
called to account for our votes here in Congress. One is at our next 
election; the other is when we draw our last breath of air. I am more 
concerned about the latter.
  This vote isn't about supporting or opposing President Trump. I voted 
for President Trump. I plan to vote for President Trump again.
  This vote is about exercising our constitutional authority. More 
importantly, it is about our moral obligation to decide when and where 
our troops are going to be asked to give their lives.
  Congress needs to do more of what we are doing here today. We need to 
debate our involvement in Afghanistan, and then we need to bring our 
troops home. We need to debate our involvement in Iraq, and then we 
need to bring our troops home.
  We certainly don't need another war. If we do go to war, it needs to 
be with the blessing and the support of the people and a mission that 
our soldiers can accomplish.
  We do that by following the vision of our Founding Fathers: We debate 
it here on the floor of the House.
  That is what this resolution is about, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who is the Republican whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. If you 
look at what they are attempting to do, there has been a lot of talk 
about the 2002 AUMF, Madam Speaker, and I am sure, as Congress has over 
the years, we will continue to have a healthy debate over what that 
proper role should be of Congress as it relates to the 2002 AUMF. But 
that is not what this debate is about.
  When you read the resolution, in fact, just by its own name, this is 
not an act of Congress. This isn't even changing the law. So if you 
want to have a sincere debate over what that power should be that 
Congress gave to the executive branch, then let's have that debate. But 
don't try to pass some fig leaf resolution that is only intended to try 
to undermine the President in the middle of a conflict with the world's 
largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran.
  There is no dispute about how bad of an evil terrorist Soleimani was, 
yet here you hear all of these equivocations: Oh, Soleimani was bad 
person but.
  Madam Speaker, how can you sit here and try to apologize for the 
things that he did by saying that taking him out was wrong?
  This world is a safer place with Soleimani gone. If you want to 
apologize to anybody, go apologize to the families of those hundreds of 
men and women in our uniform who are dead at the hands of Soleimani, 
not only the people whom he had already killed but the even more 
Americans whom at the very time of his death he was plotting to kill.

                              {time}  1600

  How much is enough? At what point do we say: Take him off the face of 
this planet so he can't kill more innocent people? That is what was 
ultimately done.
  We support President Trump in his efforts at keeping America safe, 
just like we supported President Obama when he took out Osama bin 
Laden, another evil terrorist who had the blood of thousands of 
Americans on his hands.
  If we are going to be serious about keeping this country safe, 
absolutely,

[[Page H104]]

there is a role for Congress to play, but you have got to support the 
efforts of your Commander in Chief to carry out his constitutional duty 
which he has to keep this country safe.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership in bringing this important opportunity for 
us to express our concern about the President's actions. I salute him 
and the support on the other side of the aisle for this legislation.
  As we know, last week, the Trump administration conducted a 
provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-
level Iranian military officials, and he did so without consulting 
Congress.
  When I first heard from the administration, the Secretary of Defense 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I said: Why did you not consult 
Congress in this change in approach?
  They said: Because we had to keep this close. We had to keep this 
close.
  You had to keep it close from the Gang of 8, the leadership of the 
Congress?
  We had to keep it close because we didn't want the word get out.
  Well, we deserve the respect from the administration, and the 
Congress deserves, by dint of the Constitution, the requirement of the 
administration to consult with Congress.
  We know full well, better than many in the administration, the 
importance of classified information. We know that we are supposed to 
support sources and methods. We also know that the consultation that 
they would give to us does not enable us to divulge any information.
  So who are they keeping it close from? They admitted, this 
administration, they were keeping it close from the Congress of the 
United States, and they did so.
  Now, they did a classified presentation yesterday, which their own 
party members, Republican Senators, said it was the most demeaning and 
worst classified briefing that they had had. I, myself, think there is 
stiff competition for that designation of ``worst presentation'' by 
this administration in a classified briefing.
  But all that is to say that the Constitution of the United States 
calls for there to be cooperation when we decide about initiating 
hostilities. Congress has the right to declare war. When do you decide 
that it is war? When do you decide it is just hostilities? When does 
that end? What line do you cross?
  But, with the President's actions last week, he endangered our 
servicemen and -women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious 
risk of escalation of tensions with Iran.
  This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors 
they are in the world. I, from my intelligence background, know that 
Soleimani was somebody whom we do not mourn the loss of. He did very 
evil things in the world. But we also know that when we take an action, 
we have to understand the ramifications of it.
  Others could have taken Soleimani out. Israel could have taken 
Soleimani out, but they didn't. They didn't.
  So, that has happened. That is where it is. As we go forward, it is 
really important for us to address the parameters of the War Powers 
Act, and that is what we are doing here today.
  The Members of Congress have serious and urgent concerns about the 
administration's decision to engage--I use the term ``decision'' 
loosely--to engage in hostilities against Iran, and it is about a lack 
of strategy. What is the strategy to move forward?
  Again, they did not consult with Congress. They gave a presentation 
that, by their own side of the aisle, has been described as demeaning 
and the worst. And then they tell Members to go read the classified 
documents.
  Classified? Why are these documents classified? Why can't the 
American people know?
  We understand redactions of sources and methods and the rest, but, if 
you read that document, you would know there is no reason for it to be 
classified; and without going into any substantive matters of what 
happened yesterday in the classified briefing, it is fair to say that 
Members were told to go read other documents which are redacted and, in 
many cases, classified unnecessarily.
  Our concerns were not addressed by the President's insufficient War 
Powers authorization, which was classified in its entirety, leaving the 
Congress and the public in the dark about our national security, and 
our concerns were not addressed by the administration's briefing 
yesterday.
  Today, to honor our duty to keep the American people safe--that is 
our first responsibility, to protect and defend; we must keep the 
American people safe--the House will pass a War Powers Resolution to 
limit the President's military actions regarding Iran.
  Congress is reasserting our long-established oversight 
responsibilities as we mandate that, if no further Congressional action 
is taken, the administration's military hostilities with regard to Iran 
must end.
  We salute Congresswoman Slotkin for her leadership in this 
resolution. She is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst 
specializing in Shiite militias, who served multiple tours in the 
region under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
  It is important to know, because I heard the distinguished whip on 
the other side of the aisle ask: How come it is just a concurrent 
resolution? It is because, under the War Powers Act, that is one of the 
options that is provided. You can do a joint resolution, House 
resolution, or you can do a concurrent resolution.

  The value and the beauty and the exquisite nature of a concurrent 
resolution is that it does not have to be signed by the President of 
the United States. The Congress of the United States, in its full power 
and full voice, can speak in a united way about what the War Powers Act 
should look like, and that should count for something to our colleagues 
who serve in the Congress of the United States. So, under the authority 
of the War Powers Act that gives us this option, we take this 
opportunity to do so.
  I implore the administration to work with Congress to advance 
immediate, effective, deescalatory strategy that prevents further 
violence.
  I also salute this resolution because it does give opportunity for 
the administration to act under certain circumstances which are part of 
the War Powers Act.
  Madam Speaker, in December, a group of us, in a bipartisan way, 
traveled to Belgium and Luxembourg to observe the 75th anniversary of 
the Battle of the Bulge and who served in that battle. One of our 
Members, Annie Kuster, her father served in that, and she has letters 
from him at that time.
  Other Members, on both sides of the aisle--Mr. Seth Moulton, his 
grandfather served in the Battle of the Bulge--also on the Republican 
side of the aisle, the House and in the Senate.
  And why I bring it up is this. That Battle of the Bulge was a 
decisive battle in World War II. It was a surprise attack, really, by 
the Germans. It was a bloody battle. We lost 19,000 Americans--19,000 
Americans--in that Battle of the Bulge.
  On the days that we were there, when I was listening to the 
description of it from the veterans who served, it sounded almost like 
Washington crossing the Delaware, because it was December, as it was in 
the United States in the beginning of our fight for independence. 
Supplies were insufficient. The camouflage for snow was not adequate. 
Our veterans, our then men in uniform were exposed--nurses, too. And it 
was a triumph that was very decisive in World War II.
  And why I bring it up is because, when there was the observance of 
it--it was parts of 3 days we were there for it. But at the close of 
it, there was a ceremony that included a speech by the King of Belgium, 
the Grand Duke of Luxembourg--two of the places where this all took 
place--and the President of Germany, who spoke beautifully about 
Germany now, saying: When you freed Luxembourg and Belgium, you also 
freed the Germans.
  What a beautiful statement.
  But the close of it was from a veteran who served in the Battle of 
the Bulge, in his nineties. He was a teenager in the war. We saw the 
foxholes in which they fought, they lost their comrades in arms. He 
talked about the brotherhood, and he talked about allies, and he talked 
about the fight. At the end of the speech, the veteran said: I don't

[[Page H105]]

know if I should say this, but I will. My message to all of you is pray 
for peace.
  Pray for peace.
  That is what we should be doing is moving toward peace, not 
escalation of hostilities where that can be avoided. Not because we 
believe that the other side has good motivations or that Soleimani was 
not a bad person.
  It is not because of what they are; it is because of who we are as 
Americans: a country that is committed to peace and security and 
prepared to protect and defend, as President Kennedy said, fight any 
fight, fight any foe, pay any price to keep the American people safe, 
but to not be frivolous and cavalier about how we decide to show 
strength when it really is more of an escalation than a deescalation.
  So it is sad because you would think that, any time we would engage 
in such an important change in approach, we would be working together, 
consulting together, respecting the approach that each side takes to 
all of this and, hopefully, just be on one side of it all.
  So I think this is very important. It doesn't do everything, and it 
is said: Well, it doesn't do this; it doesn't do that.
  We should never be judging legislation, necessarily, for what it 
doesn't do, but respecting it for what it does do, and what this does 
is very important for the security of our country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this brazen political 
stunt.
  Qasem Soleimani was a vicious terrorist who built a cult following on 
the backs of dead Americans. He armed Hezbollah, KH, and other Iranian 
proxies who killed American troops and our allies throughout the Middle 
East. The Homeland Security and Defense Departments have kept close 
watch on his terror campaigns for years.
  Soleimani was not visiting Baghdad because it was a great holiday 
destination. He was there to meet the leader of a terrorist group that 
killed an American just days before.
  Our President used the law and his constitutional authority as 
Commander in Chief to eliminate this terrorist mastermind before he 
could kill again.
  Democrats immediately responded by doubting our intelligence and 
dismissing the expertise of our military leaders. Now they bring this 
resolution to the floor that maligns our President, undermines our 
national security, and makes a martyr of a man who killed nearly 600 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  Speaking out against the Vietnam War in 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. implored: ``We must move past indecision to action. We must find 
new ways to speak for peace. If we do not act, we shall surely be 
dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved 
for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, 
and strength without sight.''
  Dr. King's words are just as apropos today. President Trump, in 
ordering a significant military strike, without seeking authorization, 
or even consultation with Congress, has brought us to the brink of war.
  The Constitution of this great country gives the solemn power to 
declare war to the people's representatives in Congress, not one person 
in the White House, whoever that might be.
  With this resolution, Congress is acting to uphold our constitutional 
responsibility. If the President believes military action against Iran 
is warranted, this resolution, and the Constitution, require him to 
make the case to Congress and receive authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly regret that we find ourselves in the position we 
are today. The Trump administration's policy toward Iran, abandoning 
the nuclear deal rather than building on it, while escalating tensions 
instead, is an unwise application of American power, might, and 
strength.
  The strike against General Soleimani, a bad man who no American 
mourns, drags us closer to another long, dark, and shameful corridor to 
an unnecessary war.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is clear that only 
Congress can start a war, but only the President can wage it. Congress 
started this war with the AUMF in 2002. It is still in effect.
  The Founders didn't want one individual getting us into a war; but 
once in it, they didn't want 535 squabbling prima donnas second-
guessing every decision on the battlefield.
  President Trump needed no other reason to order the attack that 
killed Soleimani in Iraq, beyond the simple fact that he was acting as 
an enemy combatant against U.S. forces in a war zone in which the 
Congress had authorized the President to take military action.
  I happen to believe the AUMF was a colossal mistake, but this 
resolution doesn't correct that mistake. It compounds it by 
deliberately undermining the position of the United States Government 
and the Armed Forces that we sent to Iraq at a perilous moment, which 
makes it not only unconstitutional, but disgraceful.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Castro), the vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, the American 
people have been unwillingly taken to the brink of war at the direction 
of this administration.
  Through reckless actions, the White House has unified the Iranian 
public, alienated our partners in Iraq and Europe, undermined the fight 
against ISIS, and left the United States more isolated than before; all 
in just 1 week, and without the consent of this Congress.
  This is a grave and serious moment in our country.
  Two days ago, our brave men and women in uniform came under fire from 
22 Iranian missiles, in harm's way because of their Commander in Chief.
  Every American owes a debt of gratitude to our military for its 
courage and sacrifice. For that reason, a decision that risks troops' 
well-being must only be made thoughtfully and with the informed consent 
of the public and this Congress.
  As a Member of Congress, my biggest priority is to protect the safety 
of the American people, at home and abroad. This can only be done by 
defending Congress' constitutional authority over declaring war.
  For that reason, I urge us to support this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Major Ronald Culver, Jr., Corporal Justin Mixon, 
Sergeant Joseph Richard, III, Sergeant Terrell Gilmore, Staff Sergeant 
Jarred Fontenot, Corporal William Crouch, Private Mark Graham, Staff 
Sergeant Ronnie Sanders, Staff Sergeant Jacob McMillan, Sergeant Joshua 
Madden, Sergeant Jay Gauthreaux, Private Joshua Burrows, Corporal 
Joseph Dumas, Lance Corporal Jon Bowman, Lance Corporal John Hale, 
Sergeant Matthew Vosbein, Sergeant First Class Terry Wallace, Sergeant 
Brandon Teeters, Lance Corporal Derrick Cothran, Staff Sergeant Bryan 
Lewis, Sergeant Julia Atkins, Sergeant Willard Partridge, Corporal 
David Stewart.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Sergeant David Murray, First Sergeant Michael Bordelon, 
Sergeant Nicholas Olivier, Sergeant Seth Trahan, Staff Sergeant 
Jonathan Reed, Sergeant Christopher Ramsey, Sergeant Michael Evans, 
Sergeant Robert Sweeney, Staff Sergeant William Manuel.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), a valued

[[Page H106]]

member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before 
us today.
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: ``Congress shall 
have the power to declare war.'' The Founders were unequivocal. Only 
Congress has the power to authorize acts of war.
  Today, we bring forth this resolution to honor our Founding Fathers' 
vision for our country, for our government, one whose very survival 
hinges on the separation of powers and each branch's respect for the 
others' authority.
  At this moment we, as a Congress, have an opportunity to pursue de-
escalatory actions that protect the lives of our Armed Forces, 
diplomats, and civilians. I implore the President and this 
administration to work with this Congress in this effort.
  Today marks this first step. We must aggressively pursue diplomacy so 
that no lives are lost. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to join in that pursuit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a 
President who carried out his oath of office.
  I am afraid the reason we are here today, again, is out of pure 
opposition to this President, and not the serious national security 
issues at hand.
  Make no mistake; terrorist Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of 
hundreds of Americans, including those that my friend and colleague, 
Ralph Abraham, just read. Hundreds of Americans; and he was plotting to 
kill many more.
  The President used his full legal authority to take defensive action 
and eliminate this brutal terrorist. The world is safer today because 
of it.
  In times like these, we need to come together as a country and stand 
behind our men and women in uniform. Whoever occupies the White House 
should have the ability to direct and address threats and prevent 
American bloodshed.
  Just 48 hours ago, Iran attacked U.S. military personnel; and yet, we 
are hastily voting on this partisan resolution that will weaken 
national security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this political show 
resolution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of the War Powers Resolution as an original cosponsor. 
This is a grave and pivotal moment in American history, and we must be 
greatly concerned for the security of our troops and the safety of the 
American people.
  We live in an era of hybrid warfare and high-intensity reaction. One 
reckless military strike can incentivize countermeasures, not just in 
the immediate region, but thousands of miles away by Iran's proxies. 
Wise use of force matters.
  Without congressional authorization, and in defiance of our 
Constitution, this President ordered an unprecedented strike on Iran's 
top generals.
  There is no doubt Soleimani was a fierce enemy of liberty. However, 
this Lone Ranger attack by the President risks all-out war, greater 
instability in Iraq and Iran, losing the edge we have gained at such 
great cost; and some of those names have been put on the Record today.
  We must protect against further attacks on our servicemembers and 
attacks on U.S. assets, wherever they might exist.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. To those ends, the American people deserve full 
transparency. The President must take steps to de-escalate this highly 
volatile situation in a most ungovernable part of the world.
  Let us rigorously pursue, with our allies, turning back Iran's 
development of nuclear weapons. And let us do all we can to uphold our 
beloved Constitution, put raging bulls back in their cages, and make 
the American people safer.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and fellow Texan, 
Ranking Member McCaul, for his strong leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to weaponize impeachment to discredit 
the President. It is a whole other thing to handcuff our Commander in 
Chief and jeopardize the safety of our soldiers and prevent them from 
defending themselves.
  Thankfully, this is a partisan resolution that is going nowhere. But 
it is also disturbing insight into the naive and impotent ideology of 
appeasement that invited Russia into Syria, created ISIS in Iraq, and 
emboldened Iran to terrorize and brutally murder throughout the Middle 
East.
  This is not a resolution. This is a retreat, a de facto apology. But 
for what? For ridding the world of a brutal terrorist with American 
blood on his hands?
  If this resolution were to become law, Mr. Speaker, it would be a 
death warrant, and not for the worst of terrorists, but for the best of 
Americans, our sons and daughters on the battlefield who would be left 
defenseless, sitting ducks for a murderous mob of mullahs in Iran and 
Iranian-backed militias throughout the region.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for Congress to exert 
our authority over the questions of war and peace; and I am proud to 
vote for this concurrent resolution to invoke the War Powers Act in 
order to restrain this reckless President.
  This vote would halt military operations and force the President to 
come to Congress to authorize any further acts of war.
  The President, remarkably, said: ``All is well.''
  Well, Mr. President, it is not well. Iran announced that it would 
withdraw from the nuclear agreement and will begin to resume its 
nuclear weapons plan. The United States has been forced to stop its 
actions against ISIS. Iraq is likely to expel the United States from 
its country, fulfilling what has been a dream, actually, of Soleimani.
  Our European allies are angry because they were not alerted, and our 
actions have united the people of Iraq against us, and the people of 
Iran are together now.
  Mr. President, America is not safer because of what you have done. 
And we must pass this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let us hope that demagoguery will not play too great a part in the 
consideration of this piece of legislation. I just heard one of my 
colleagues on the other side mischaracterize the position of my party 
and of this resolution.
  This resolution is the law. This resolution is consistent with not 
only the law, the War Powers Act, but the Constitution of the United 
States.
  I thank Representative Slotkin for authoring this resolution, as well 
as Chairman Smith, Chairman Engel, Representative Khanna, 
Representative Lee, and others who have been working hard to ensure 
that Congress maintains its role as a coequal branch of government when 
it comes to matters of war and peace.
  This President, as we have seen, has consistently treated the 
legislative branch as inferior to the executive branch. Sadly, Mr. 
Speaker, we have had numerous votes on this floor last year to stand up 
for the coequal status of the Congress of the United States. Too often, 
our Republican friends have sided with the executive department, 
diminishing the authority and the position of the Congress of the 
United States. This is not about this President, nor is it about 
shrinking from confronting terrorism and terrorists.
  Again and again, we have seen this President ignore Congress' 
directives on appropriations, including by shifting money away from the 
military to

[[Page H107]]

fund his costly and ineffective border wall. This President has refused 
to disburse emergency funding for disaster relief that Congress 
allocated to help the people of Puerto Rico and other places where 
Americans are in need of help. This President withheld congressionally 
appropriated funding to help Ukraine repel Russian terrorism.
  After criticizing his predecessor for the use of executive orders, 
President Trump has doubled down on using them to circumvent the will 
of Congress and the American people.
  This resolution is to say: Mr. President, obey the law, obey the 
Constitution of the United States of America, which gives Congress the 
sole authority to declare war.
  If you read the language of the resolution, it continues to say that 
we are for, certainly, defending any of our people at risk, period. The 
War Powers Act provides for that. Article II of the Constitution 
provides for that.
  The President has ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and 
testimony, directing subordinates to build a wall of obstruction unseen 
in our history. It should, therefore, be no surprise that we 
representatives of the 320-plus million people of America, who expect 
us to be their voice in this critical issue of declaring war--and this 
resolution does not prohibit in any way the President of the United 
States, under his Article II powers, acting to defend our military, our 
allies, and our homeland.
  With the actions taken last week, the President is unilaterally 
moving us toward involvement in another deadly and destabilizing war in 
the Middle East.
  I am glad, frankly, as we all are, that the response that came from 
Iran was either ineffective or simply meant to be a message. I don't 
know which.
  Thankfully, however, the Congress has, under law and our 
Constitution, a remedy to reassert our position as a coequal branch--as 
a matter of fact, an Article I branch--and ensure, as the Founders 
intended, that only the Congress, speaking on behalf of all the people, 
could declare war.
  Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 because they believed a 
Democratic President, and it was a Democratic Congress that adopted the 
War Powers Act, because they believed a Democratic President had 
overstepped the bounds.
  Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, determined to ensure that 
no President can send our troops into war without the people's 
representatives authorizing it. I suggest to my friends on both sides 
of the aisle that is what the Founders intended.
  We must use this tool of congressional power or, by our silence, 
acquiesce to the growth of the imperial Presidency, which by the way, 
has been going on for some 40 years, maybe even 50 years, irrespective 
of who is President.
  This is not a partisan resolution. This is a resolution consistent 
with the Constitution of the United States of America, which did not 
want a single person to be able to take America to war, to put our men 
and women at risk.
  Let us be absolutely clear: Qasem Soleimani was a dangerous purveyor 
of terror and violence and a practice thereof. He was an architect of 
Iranian efforts to dominate the Middle East through aggression and 
fear. He has American blood on his hands, as well as the blood of our 
allies.
  He has met the justice he deserves. I say that notwithstanding the 
fact I do not know from the information I have received whether or not, 
in fact, it was absolutely essential to take his life now because of 
imminent danger. Perhaps it was.
  In any event, no one laments the loss of Soleimani's life, at least 
in this country and by freedom-loving people throughout the world. We 
are relieved that the Iranian counterstrike was limited and caused no 
American or allied casualties.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents and the American people are deeply 
concerned about what comes next with a possibility of further 
retaliation and escalation from Iran or its proxies. There may be a 
time when such action is called for, but it is this body that needs to 
make that decision, the United States Senate and this body.
  Iran is a dangerous enemy of freedom and a sponsor of terror. It 
continues to harbor ambitions of dominance over its neighbors and to 
call for the destruction of Israel. This Iranian regime is no friend 
and must not be trusted.

  Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. I believe 
this Congress would vote to ensure that that was prohibited. This 
resolution makes those facts clear. We must have a sound, long-term 
strategy to deal with Iran and bring it into compliance with 
international laws and norms.
  The threat of military force must continue to be a part of any 
strategy, along with sanctions and diplomacy, and this resolution in no 
way contravenes that premise.
  The best way forward is for Congress and the administration to work 
together. That is what our Founders had in mind. Proper congressional 
oversight and involvement will help ensure, not undermine, that the 
administration adopts and pursues the best possible strategy to check 
and oppose Iran's malign ambitions.
  Let us not demagogue one another. There can be differences. This 
resolution is brought to this floor of the House to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States of America and to again urge this 
President, as we have urged Democratic Presidents, to ensure that they 
follow the strictures of our Constitution on behalf of the safety of 
our people and the respect we have throughout the world.
  We are a nation of laws. This resolution is about the laws.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the leader, and I 
do not disagree with him that the President needs to come to Congress 
to authorize war with Iran, but that is not what we are looking at here 
today.
  We do not currently have troops engaged in hostility in Iran subject 
to withdrawal under the War Powers Resolution. However, if the 
administration were to strike Iran directly, in my opinion, they would 
need to submit a war powers notification, and they would need to 
proceed with an authorized use of military force.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Spano).
  Mr. SPANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McCaul for yielding.
  I oppose this resolution. The Speaker claims it is a necessary 
response to President Trump's ``disproportionate'' attack on ``high-
level Iranian military officials.'' Disproportionate?
  Apparently, Democrats have forgotten who Qasem Soleimani was, one of 
the worst perpetrators of terror in recent history. He led the 
organization that founded Hezbollah, one of the most violent terrorist 
groups opposing Israel. He directed his groups to kill over 600 
American servicemembers in Iraq and wounded thousands more. He led a 
brutal attack on peaceful protestors recently in Iran, killing over 
1,000 Iranians.
  A bully will not stand down unless he knows you are willing to stand 
toe-to-toe with him, unless he knows there are consequences to his 
actions. President Trump acted decisively in bringing down this brutal, 
inhumane bully, this terrorist mastermind, to stop an imminent threat. 
It was necessary to show Iran we will no longer tolerate their 
aggression.
  We should be united in our support for eliminating this threat and in 
supporting the President's efforts to negotiate a new, more effective 
Iran deal.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution so that all options 
are on the table and so that we can negotiate from a position of 
strength toward achieving a peaceful solution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concurrent resolution, 
which requires President Trump to immediately terminate military 
operations against Iran. It is about time that Congress exercised its 
war powers authority under the Constitution. I believe this is long 
overdue.
  The President has taken our Nation to the brink of war without 
properly consulting Congress or seeking the legal authority to do so. 
Only Congress can authorize military action under Article I of the 
Constitution.
  To add insult to injury, the Trump administration has failed to fully 
explain to Congress and the American people what exactly the imminent 
threat was to the United States that required the strike that was 
undertaken. My constituents and people

[[Page H108]]

across the country have been terrified about the prospect of a new war 
in the Middle East.
  Now, let me be clear: No Member of Congress carries a brief for 
Soleimani or the Iranian Government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. No President has unilateral authority to take our Nation 
to war without authorization from Congress. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, if it were but a matter of offering three cheers for the 
legislative branch, that would be fine, but this is dangerous and 
simply makes no sense.
  If the majority wished to assert Congress' authority, as several have 
argued, it would not use a nonbinding resolution, but let me take the 
majority at its chosen words, as if binding.
  The words of the resolution would literally prohibit the President 
from ordering the shoot-down of Iranian ballistic missiles inbound for 
Haifa or a surface-to-air missile locked onto a Ukrainian airliner.
  And the resolution's chosen words, as Democrats argue them, would 
prevent the President from the strike on Soleimani itself even if 
devastating harm to American soldiers were imminent but Democrats 
second-guessed that judgment.
  The language they have chosen is designed to debilitate the President 
from protecting Americans.
  The intemperate words of the past week have cost many their 
credibility. Now Democrats' spite for President Trump has cost them 
their good judgment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 AUMF. 
In coming to that very difficult decision, I learned an important 
lesson: that we must ask every administration that seeks to use 
military force how it will manage the consequences of its actions, even 
if those actions can be justified.
  Has this administration done that? Unfortunately, I think the answer 
is no.
  I will vote for this resolution today for the same reasons I had 
then: no overall strategy, no justification, and nobody in this 
administration can answer how it will respond to the aftermath.
  By virtue of the power and the responsibility granted to us by the 
Constitution, we must ask those questions.
  Let's take this opportunity to make diplomacy work. Let's stand 
together as a Congress to establish our authority. Let's stand together 
and vote against a new war without an end game.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant First Class Kurt Comeaux, Sergeant 
Christopher Babin, Sergeant Bradley Bergeron, Sergeant Huey Fassbender, 
Sergeant Armand Frickey, Sergeant Warren Murphy, Sergeant Craig Nelson, 
First Lieutenant Christopher Barnett, Private First Class Torey 
Dantzler, Private First Class James Lambert, Sergeant Taft Williams.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul, for giving me 
additional time to finish the list that I started earlier.
  These are 44 young Americans from Louisiana who died by IEDs in the 
most active part of Iraq when Soleimani and his proxies were engaged. 
They designed, they built, and they implemented these IEDs; and in 
Louisiana alone, 44 young Americans gave their lives for the United 
States of America.
  President Trump, he had the authority, he has the right, and, 
thankfully, he had the courage to terminate Soleimani and remove this 
cancer from this Earth.
  Mr. Speaker, to my Democratic colleagues and friends, I say, if you 
can look these Gold Star families in the face and tell them that this 
was not a justified strike and that Soleimani needed to be removed from 
this Earth, then God have mercy on you.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, we may be relieved that an impulsive act 
by President Trump has not immediately led to war with Iran, we may be 
relieved that an evil man is dead, but as that evil man wished, our 
troops have now been asked to leave Iraq, and if they stay, their 
ability to work with Iraqis to fight ISIS has been shot.
  As he wished, the protest movement in Iran and Iraq that threatened 
the Iranian regime has been silenced.
  As he wished, Iran is now breaking free of all restrictions on its 
nuclear program.
  We are not safer today.
  In this moment of danger, there is just one question that this 
resolution asks. It is not do you support what the President has 
already done, but should Congress play our constitutional role in 
deciding what happens next.
  I support this resolution because passing it will protect us against 
going to war with a tweet, but it also ensures that, if we do go to 
war, which we may have to at some point, we will do so with the 
American people united, not divided, as the Framers intended, as our 
national interest demands.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cisneros).
  Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of our 
Constitution and express the urgent need of Congress to reestablish 
itself as an equal branch of government.
  Our Founders explicitly laid out the roles and responsibilities of 
the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, creating a 
necessary system of checks and balances, but today we find our 
democratic system in jeopardy.
  In the past week, there has been an increasing concern about the 
United States going to war with Iran.
  Let me be very clear: If and when the President decides to use 
military action, he must go through Congress first.
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 
declare war. Any attempt to undermine that power would be unsafe, 
unacceptable, and unconstitutional.
  As a Navy veteran, I am constantly thinking of our brave 
servicemembers. It is why I take this constitutional responsibility 
seriously.

  We cannot turn our backs to our principles, we cannot turn our backs 
to our values, and we cannot turn our backs to the Constitution.
  I look forward to voting for the War Powers Resolution and taking 
Congress' power back.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Hice).
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in great frustration in opposition to this politically-
motivated resolution. It is nothing but a blatant attempt to handcuff 
the President's ability to defend our citizens and our allies.
  Just this morning, U.S. intelligence officials reported that they are 
now confident that Ukraine Airlines 752 was shot down by Iranian 
surface-to-air missiles, another 176 innocent lives lost.
  The Islamic Republic of Iran has been hostile to our Nation for 
decades, and yet it has certainly escalated in the last several months 
with a campaign of antagonistic military action.
  Have my Democratic colleagues forgotten about the shipping vessel 
sabotaged by naval mines last May and June, or the American drone shot 
down over international waters, or the British oil tanker seized by the 
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or the Saudi oil facilities that were 
attacked?
  And then when an American citizen was killed in an attack on Kirkuk 
Air Base in December and our Embassy in Iraq subsequently overrun, our 
President drew a line in the sand. Yet, after months of tremendous 
restraint, the President was determined that not one

[[Page H109]]

more American life would be lost by this hostile Iranian regime, and I 
fully support the President in his actions.
  I do agree with many of my colleagues that it is time for this body 
to have a serious conversation and to address the many issues inherent 
with operating under a 20-plus-year-old authorization for military 
force, but that should not be confused with the process that is taking 
place here with this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but an attempt by 
the majority in a 3-year-long process by their party to take any and 
every opportunity to undermine or embarrass this President. But be 
assured that this politically-motivated resolution nor any evil that 
comes our way will cause our President to hesitate when called upon to 
defend American lives.
  I just say, God bless the President; God bless America.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, please don't question our motives or patriotism and we 
won't question yours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
that reasserts congressional authority over going to war.
  We know this: War is devastating for our troops, for their families, 
for families and children everywhere, for not just this generation but 
future generations to come, for our humanity. That is why our Framers 
gave this body the opportunity, the responsibility to have that 
discussion and declare war should it be needed.
  In 2002, we rushed to war based on made-up claims of weapons of mass 
destruction, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took hundreds of 
thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, and cost us trillions 
of dollars.
  Today, the President, without providing any raw intelligence to prove 
an imminent threat, has brought us to the brink of war with Iran. This 
resolution makes it clear that Congress has not authorized this war.
  We also must repeal the 2002 AUMF and vote to withhold funds for this 
unauthorized war. It is time to reassert our authority.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of #13DistrictStrong. 
This is a district that believes in leading with compassion. They 
believe in a full stop to endless violent wars that only result in loss 
of life and the destruction of lives forever changed.
  For us, Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect our democracy and 
promote global peace. We must remove political motives and for-profit 
schemes from the decisionmaking process to go to war. If we don't, it 
would only lead to more warfare and death.
  We cannot allow a process that is tainted, secretive, or encompasses 
lies to make that choice. We need a country that easily chooses peace 
for generations to come.
  I proudly represent a district that believes in the rule of law. That 
is why I rise today as their voice in support of a War Powers 
Resolution that will give them a say in whether or not our country goes 
to war.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Green).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to 
this resolution.
  First, this is a nonbinding resolution. If you really wanted to exert 
some congressional decisionmaking, we would do a bill that goes before 
the President and gets signed or gets vetoed. This is purely theatrics.
  None of these Democrat leaders stood up when President Obama violated 
the airspace of Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden. Now, I am glad he 
did that, but there was no congressional authorization to go into 
Pakistan. At least here there is a congressional authorization for our 
forces to be on the ground and using military power.
  The President has clear authority under Article II to act when our 
Nation and our military is at risk. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff said: ``The trigger for the drone strike that killed Soleimani 
was `clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a significant campaign 
of violence against the United States in the days, weeks, and months,' 
and that the administration would have been `culpably negligent' if it 
didn't act''--General Mark Milley.
  These people understand one thing, and it is strength. You will 
recall that when President Clinton pulled our forces out of Somalia 
after we got the black eye on Black Hawk Down, bin Laden cited that as 
proof that Americans run away, that they won't stand and fight.
  I have been to combat three times in this region of the world, twice 
in Iraq and once in Afghanistan. I have looked these individuals in the 
eye. It is strength that they understand. And, clearly, it has shown 
itself to be true again.
  This President stood up, and Iran's response was clear. They had two 
audiences in their response:
  At home, they wanted people to see strength. They shot 15 missiles. 
Back in their press, they are saying they killed Americans. They 
didn't, of course.
  The other audience, the United States and the rest of the world, they 
fired 16 missiles, all 16 missed. All 16 missiles missed.
  Remember when they hit Saudi Arabia? All those missiles hit. They 
know how to hit their target. They fired 16 missiles against us and not 
one hit.
  What is the message they are saying? Immediately after they fired 
them, they stood up and said: We are done. No more. That is the end of 
our response. They told the Shia militia groups to stand down. Muqtada 
al-Sadr said to his people today: Stand down.
  They respond to strength, and our President did the right thing. He 
was a strong response, a strong response to storming a sovereign U.S. 
territory of an embassy with 6,000 people, killing American 
contractors, and wounding American soldiers with a rocket attack.
  Mr. Speaker, this President made a strong response, and it has shown 
itself to work.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just can't really believe what I just 
heard.
  It was the 2001 AUMF that specifically authorized our going after 
Osama bin Laden. He is the example of Congress getting involved. That 
was the authorization to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or anyplace 
else, and that is what we are trying to assure here, that things aren't 
just happening, that there is actual authority. Osama bin Laden is the 
wrong example, because we gave the authority to go after him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a United States Marine war 
veteran, I came to Congress with the promise of never sending someone 
else's child to a war that could be avoided. This War Powers Resolution 
says no war with Iran without congressional approval, while still 
ensuring defense if there is an imminent threat.
  While we do not mourn the death of Iran's commander of terror, 
Americans and our allies worry about the ramifications that will make 
us less safe: the fight against ISIS has been diverted; regional 
protests against the Iranian regime are now against America; Iranian 
proxies have been further incited; and Iran is closer to having a 
nuclear weapon.
  America is not a monarchy. The decision to go to war requires debate, 
deliberation, and collective judgment. That is why the law gives the 
responsibility to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I will continue to reserve 
until Chairman Engel is prepared to close.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Engel, for yielding.
  I am troubled by aspects of this debate. I think it is fine that we 
have different views, but to hear some on the other side characterize 
the position of

[[Page H110]]

those who support this resolution as somehow not loving the country as 
much as they do when it is our country, as well, that we have pledged 
to defend--it is the same veterans on this side of the aisle who put 
themselves in harm's way as the veterans on the other side of the 
aisle. There is no distinction in the battlefield. We love our children 
and want to defend them as much as we know you do as well. So let's 
stop the demagoguery regarding patriotism.
  This comes to a simple question. It is not even a question as to 
whether or not there was justification to take out Mr. Soleimani, 
because clearly there was. The question is: Who gives the 
justification? Who authorizes military action in this country?
  We can all have our opinions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. KILDEE. We ought to consult the Constitution, which clearly vests 
that authority in this Congress. We ought not fear that authority and 
outsource it to the executive branch. We ought to embrace that 
authority and be willing to make that decision and follow the 
Constitution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. 
Congress has long been absent without leave from its constitutional 
responsibility to authorize war before it occurs. From Vietnam to Iran, 
the verdict on the War Powers Act is clear: you lose it if you do not 
use it.
  Congress chafes at outsized Presidential power, but has failed to 
exercise its own advice and consent power on war. Iran has stepped back 
for now from the brink of war, following the killing of General 
Soleimani, but a strong bipartisan 69 percent of the American people 
say that war with Iran is now more likely. No wonder, considering we 
just deployed 15,000 more troops to the region.
  Trying to get answers after the fact, as Congress did in yesterday's 
briefing, yielded frustration, not answers. Unchecked executive power 
unbalances the safeguards against arbitrary power the Framers built 
into our Constitution.
  With passage of today's resolution, we will reclaim that balance by 
reinserting Congress into decisions to go to war.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch), a very valued member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North 
Africa, and International Terrorism.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this War Powers 
Resolution, and I thank my colleague from Michigan, Representative 
Slotkin, for leading this effort today to assert Congress' rightful 
authority and to defend our solemn constitutional duty.
  None of us want to see our brave men and women sent into another war.
  To be clear, this vote is not about telling the administration that 
the President can't defend this country. My colleagues know that. They 
understand it. I strongly reject any implication that somehow, by 
supporting this resolution, we don't take our national security and the 
safety of our servicemembers seriously.
  To the contrary, nothing we do today limits the ability to respond to 
a real and imminent threat or defend this country and our interests. To 
assert so is simply false and it is reckless.
  Today, we are telling the President that, if there is a serious 
threat to the United States, our national security requires that a 
solemn decision is made to engage U.S. Forces, and the elected 
representatives of this body, of the American people, need to have that 
case made to them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to have a robust debate about 
any authorization for the use of military force.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I urge my colleagues to uphold 
the Constitution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I take a backseat to no Member of this body 
when it comes to defending the President.
  This resolution offers no criticism of the President, no critique. It 
doesn't criticize the President's attack on Soleimani. As a matter 
fact, this resolution doesn't even say Soleimani's name in it. Yet it 
does articulate our very robust basis for self-defense, at times even 
preemptory self-defense to defend our troops. And it also articulates 
our nondelegable duty as the Members of the United States Congress to 
speak to matters of war and peace.
  I represent more troops than any other Member of this body. I buried 
one of them earlier today at Arlington, and that sergeant died a 
patriot and a hero.
  If the members of our armed services have the courage to go and fight 
and die in these wars, as Congress, we ought to have the courage to 
vote for them or against them. And I think it is ludicrous to suggest 
that we are impairing the troops from doing their job by not doing our 
job articulated in the Constitution to speak to these matters of war 
and peace.
  I support the President. Killing Soleimani was the right decision, 
but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the 
wrong decision, and that is why I am voting for this resolution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, the system of checks and balances is 
broken. Last week's airstrike proves it.
  After the strike, the administration produced a vague document that 
attempts justifying America's push to the brink of war.
  Mr. Speaker, I fought in a war started by a President with false and 
trumped-up intelligence. We cannot let this President do the same.

  Americans deserve to read the declassified report so they can judge 
for themselves whether the strike was worth the risk. They will find an 
administration shooting from the hip with no strategy to deal with 
Iran.
  It is time for Congress to lead and exercise the authority the 
Founders gave us in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
  It is time to tell the President he cannot send our troops to war 
with Iran without a strategy and without the consent of their 
representatives.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's strategy to 
counter Iran has failed. He has allowed Iran to restart its nuclear 
weapons program, disrupted our operations countering ISIS, continues to 
undermine our relationship with NATO allies, and has led America to the 
brink of a new and unnecessary war.
  As someone who served in Iraq, I understand the costs of war, how our 
soldiers put their lives on the line, and the impact these decisions 
have on military families.
  Our Founders entrusted Congress with the responsibility to declare 
war. Congress owes it to the American people and our men and women in 
uniform to carry out that responsibility.
  It is time for Congress to declare that war with Iran is not in the 
best interest of the American people. It is time for Congress to repeal 
the 2002 AUMF and dramatically restrict the 2001 AUMF. And until we can 
do that, we must prevent the President from unilaterally committing the 
United States to another war in the Middle East.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office 
watching this debate, and I began to wonder who it is that we are 
actually debating against or what it is that we are debating against.
  I think back to the killing of Osama bin Laden when we stood together 
as the United States in saying this was the right thing to do at the 
right time because it would save lives; the only thing we regretted was 
that we didn't do it sooner when we had the chance to take him out, but 
we delayed because we weren't sure.

[[Page H111]]

  


                              {time}  1715

  I have gone back and read what President Obama said and he said, ``I 
made this decision on my own.'' Yet, today, we stand in the people's 
House, and we are worried more about the loss of an election in 2020 
than the loss of American lives and the continued loss of lives around 
the world by one of the worst terrorists of all time.
  We sit here and try to pretend this charade is what we are concerned 
about. But what we are really concerned about is giving too much power 
to this President. This is a President who acted boldly. This is a 
President who carried out a strike that was so precise, so strategic, 
nothing else was hurt except the car in which that terrorist was riding 
in.
  Yet, we sit here today and say: Our problem in America isn't 
terrorists around the world. Our problem in America is that we have a 
President who is too damn strong. The rest of the world knows today 
that our enemies certainly do fear us, because they know there is a 
deterrent in the White House.
  Our friends and allies know that America will always be there, will 
always be there if we say we are going to be there, and we will always 
stand up for the values that this country has always stood for.
  To have this debate tonight and this resolution is not about securing 
America or making America safer. This is about taking powers away from 
the President of the United States. We can call this anything we want 
and say, not just this President but any President in the future.
  My God, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? This is the people's 
House and our biggest responsibility is protecting our American 
citizens, and we are having this debate tonight? Please, do not tell me 
this is about taking away the Authorization for the Use of Military 
Force. This is about taking away powers from the President.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it would be helpful if 
peoples' motives or patriotism wasn't questioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the War 
Powers Resolution introduced by my colleague from Michigan, 
Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin.
  Soleimani was an evil man, a terrorist, a war criminal. No one should 
mourn his demise. But that doesn't change the question of who has the 
authority to take our Nation into war. It is Congress and only Congress 
that is endowed with the most solemn duty to decide if, when, and where 
to commit our Nation to war.
  At the same time, as Commander in Chief, it is incumbent upon our 
President to ensure that the fine men and women who serve in our 
military are only sent into harm's way after careful deliberation and 
tasked with missions that protect and further America's interests and 
reflect the values and high moral standing of our Nation.
  Our country's Founders in their foresight provided us a robust and 
constitutional Republic and representative government. They wisely 
understood that taking a nation to war should not be a unilateral 
decision by a single person, but a considered decision by the people's 
elected Representatives.
  This administration does not have congressional authorization for use 
of military force or a declaration of war against Iran. Ultimately, any 
sustained action against Iran requires congressional approval.
  Today's resolution reflects the intentions of our Founders. It makes 
clear the President must seek authorization from Congress for any 
extended military engagement with Iran without restricting his ability 
to protect the Nation from imminent threat.
  I have the honor of representing Naval Station Great Lakes where 
every enlisted sailor receives his or her basic training. I am the 
proud father of a son serving in our Navy. We owe it to these 
Americans, each one a volunteer answering the call to serve our 
country, to protect this Constitution and live up to the expectations 
of our Founders.
  The American people do not want an unnecessary war with Iran. Today's 
resolution prevents President Trump from unilaterally or impulsively 
starting one. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), a man who served on the 
battlefield in Iraq.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, actually, it takes a lot to get me to 
come down to these things, but I have been deeply troubled by some of 
the rhetoric I have been hearing about this. In fact, I was deeply 
troubled after yesterday when my colleagues, many of them, left a 
classified briefing only to immediately and recklessly trash the 
quality of intelligence they received, and in some cases, suggest there 
was no imminent threat from Soleimani.
  To suggest that would require you to ignore the death of Americans 
recently in Iraq, as well as ignore the history of Soleimani's campaign 
of terror across the Middle East.
  We learned this weekend, while this body was still in recess and 
before anyone had reviewed any of the classified information, that it 
was the intention of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
introduce this flawed War Powers Resolution without having even seen 
any of the underlying intelligence. That suggests that this is not a 
serious effort.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious effort. This is a 
political effort that will have the practical effect only of 
undermining our military deterrent in the Middle East, which for the 
first time in a long time is actually stronger.
  I think this does a service not only to our personnel in the region, 
but ultimately to the Iranian people. And what the Iranian regime fears 
more than anything else, more than the American military and the 
President of the United States, is its own people. And that is the 
reason Soleimani's death squads have gunned down Iranian civilians in 
the streets.

  We look forward to the day when the Iranian people can be free of 
their evil, barbarous, reckless regime, and I applaud the 
administration's actions.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, our Founders vested in Congress the solemn 
responsibility of sending our sons and daughters to war.
  I have often heard folks say that now is not the time to discuss the 
use of force or the decision to send our men and women to fight. I 
heard that in 2003 when I was carrying a rifle in Baghdad. I heard it 
again in 2004 and 2005 when I was leading my unit through the mountains 
of Afghanistan, and I am hearing it again today in the Halls of 
Congress.
  In the last 19 years, more than 7,000 Americans have given their 
lives in these conflicts; 53,000 have been wounded; and we have spent 
over $4 trillion of taxpayer money. Do not believe the fearmongering.
  This resolution does nothing to prevent the President from protecting 
the Nation against imminent threats. I have spent years fighting to 
keep Americans safe and will continue to do so.
  I may have laid down my rifle, but my oath to this country endures. I 
will fight to ensure that we are having a discussion about when to send 
our men and women, our sons and daughters, and our sisters and brothers 
into harm's way. It is time to have this debate.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, at this point I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time until the chairman is prepared to close.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the President's most 
recent reckless actions. The killing of General Soleimani was a 
provocation to war that made Americans less safe for years and maybe 
decades to come.
  The President has put his own ego over the strategic interests and 
safety

[[Page H112]]

of Americans. What he has accomplished with these actions is to make 
Soleimani a martyr for a generation of militant Middle Eastern foes 
that we have.
  It has united the Iranian people, not against their government, but 
against us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the President and 
Congress to keep us safe, and the Founding Fathers knew that the 
collective wisdom of the people's Representatives was better at doing 
that than one person.
  I just visited the SCIF and there is still not any report on any 
imminent danger claim that might have been made. The American people 
and Congress deserve to know what the threat allegedly was, given the 
inevitability of Iranian retaliation.
  The two greatest powers Congress has are impeachment and declarations 
of war. We are here today on both of those issues because of a 
reckless, lawless, and impetuous President.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks), a very distinguished gentleman on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, the President should not be able to commit 
the U.S. recklessly and flagrantly to war. That is the reason there are 
constitutionally mandated checks and balances. The President escalated 
hostilities with Iran and did not demonstrate any imminent threat nor 
strategy as to why.
  He clearly did not make our country safer. Quite the opposite. It is 
not a sign of strength as some of my colleagues suggest. It was an 
unchecked sign of more disarray and lack of strategic thinking.
  We have seen what happens when we don't have a plan for what comes 
next when we take out a bad actor without thinking through long-term 
consequences.
  We have lost too much blood and tears and treasure to ever allow that 
to happen again. I support, and implore my colleagues to support, this 
resolution for the sake and the state of future generations. I love 
this country. This is the greatest country in the world because we have 
checks and balances.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have just got a couple of words I would 
like to remind this body about. I have heard a lot of talk about 
patriotism, and I gave this arm in Vietnam.
  I have got a lot of good friends whose names are on the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial Wall, so don't talk to me about patriotism, and how 
much I love this country when we are standing here debating an issue 
that we all know is not going anywhere.
  The last thing I would say to you is, while I was serving in Vietnam, 
there were many occasions when I didn't have the ability to do what I 
thought was necessary. I just say to you that this body couldn't make 
up their mind whether they wanted to be in that war or not, and I 
suggest we get with the right program and do it now.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in favor of exercising our Article I 
authorities for matters as grave as war and peace, but the fact is, we 
are not at war with Iran. The President is not trying to start a war 
with Iran.
  I met with the President earlier today. He told me that if this 
resolution passes, it will take all of his power to negotiate with Iran 
off the table. That is the worst thing that we could do.

  Yesterday, he called for making a deal that allows for Iran to thrive 
and prosper. The President is making the choice to move toward 
deescalation.
  The premise of this resolution is flawed because we are not engaged 
in hostilities with Iran. The President is not trying to start 
hostilities with Iran. Despite this public proclamation by our 
President, my colleagues are trying to claim that the President still 
wants to go to war.
  I deeply regret that my colleagues are not serious enough about 
exercising our Article I authorities to pursue regular order on such a 
serious question. We have had no hearings in the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee since these events transpired. There was no Foreign Affairs 
Committee markup of this legislation.
  I received the text of this legislation only 2 hours before the Rules 
Committee meeting last night on a War Powers Resolution. Debating 
issues of war and peace is perhaps our most important responsibility as 
Members of Congress, and, yet, this legislation dropped last night 
without committee consideration as required by the War Powers 
Resolution.

                              {time}  1730

  If my colleagues were as serious about Article I as they say they 
are, then this would be a joint resolution with the force of law. 
Instead, it is a House concurrent resolution that will never go to the 
President's desk. Let me translate what that means to the American 
people listening today.
  Today, we are voting on a press release, a press statement. This is a 
political statement for a leftwing domestic audience. But they are not 
the only ones watching, Mr. Speaker.
  Iran is watching, and its proxies are watching. What they see is a 
divided America that does not fully support the ability of our 
Commander in Chief to respond to imminent threats to Americans.
  Churchill warned against appeasement when the dark clouds of fascism 
and the Third Reich swept in, in my father's war. Weakness invites 
aggression, he said. President Reagan said: ``Peace through strength.'' 
I believe in these ideals and these axioms.
  Last May, it was reported that Soleimani met with Iraqi militias in 
Baghdad and told them to ``prepare for proxy war.''
  Without last week's strike, Soleimani would still be waging that 
proxy war, a war that he was escalating. An American was killed less 
than 2 weeks ago, and four American soldiers were injured. Our Embassy 
in Baghdad was attacked under Soleimani's orders.
  What more do we need? What more evidence do we need?
  Let's talk about the facts. He is a designated terrorist under the 
Obama administration. Importantly, the President told me today that 
Soleimani was planning to blow up our Embassy. I need no further proof, 
evidence, or intelligence than that from the President of the United 
States.
  What if the President had not acted? Let's assume that. By the way, 
some on the other side of the aisle were criticizing him for not 
responding after our Embassy was attacked.
  What if he did not act. What if Soleimani had made it back to Tehran 
to meet with the Ayatollah to give the green light to carry out the 
plot to attack our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq? What if the 
Americans were killed? What if they killed our soldiers and diplomats? 
What if they successfully stormed our American Embassy and held our 
marines and diplomats hostage, like they did in 1979 when this whole 
reign of terror started with Jimmy Carter in the White House?
  How would the critics of the President respond then if we had done 
nothing? How would the American people respond? How would the Gold Star 
Mothers respond?
  No, this President did the right thing to take out this threat that 
killed so many Americans. I have been to too many funerals, as many of 
us in this Chamber have, and many of those soldiers were killed at the 
bloody hands of Soleimani. As many Americans whose families still 
grieve today, we grieve for them.
  Since 1979, Iran has presided over a reign of terror in the region. 
For over two decades, Soleimani has been the mastermind of terror, and 
the world is safer today without him.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that now is not the time to 
divide this Nation and play into the propaganda of Iran. Now is not the 
time to tie our Commander in Chief's hands. Now is the time to support 
our men and women in uniform.

[[Page H113]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, this body has to make a decision about whether we are 
going to stand up for our constitutional responsibilities or just 
subordinate ourselves to the executive branch when it comes to war 
powers.
  We are two decades into the 21st century. Our country has been at war 
almost that entire time. Not a day goes by that I don't wish we could 
have some of those decisions back, especially because we see that those 
measures we passed in 2001 and 2002 are still being used to justify 
sending American men and women into harm's way.
  We could stand here all day and say your side let this happen when 
you were in charge, or you didn't say anything when this President did 
that. I don't disagree that it has been a collective failure on the 
part of this body that we have given away our authority on war powers 
and that we haven't done enough to grapple with the issue.
  I hope today will not be the end of our efforts to make progress on 
debating Congress' war powers. If the President thinks he needs to use 
military force, then he needs to come to Congress and make the case and 
let us vote on it. This is the beginning of Congress' taking back its 
authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support 
this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Truth matters, Mr. Speaker. Truth matters.
  Truth is not Democratic or Republican. Truth is not partisan. It is 
the basis of any society that hopes to be and hopes to remain 
civilized. And so, when a faction decides that facts are flexible, that 
facts are whatever validates their preconceived notions and not what 
is, then that nation may as well close shop and turn out the lights.
  The Trump administration's justification for military action against 
Iran has been inconsistent at best. Donald Trump's speech on January 8, 
2020 was a pathetic spectacle. And the Congressional briefing was a 
sham, a cavalcade of falsehoods that has been denounced by Democrats 
and Republicans alike.
  Any rational observer, any fair-minded person can see it. Certainly, 
my Republican colleagues know. Which is why some have turned to 
audacious, outrageous statements. I have heard them say that dissenting 
voices support terrorism simply for asking questions. That those of us 
who want to avoid war are traitors.
  They have gone so far and have gone so low to blame President Obama 
for Iran's recent attack on U.S. forces. Going so far as to lie that 
Iran was given over $150 billion after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action was signed.
  These are scurrilous lies. Let me repeat that: these accusations are 
lies, told by desperate people. Told by people too cowardly to put 
their ambitions aside to lift a finger for truth. I'd say they should 
be ashamed of themselves, but they are clearly past shame. That ship 
has sailed.
  In his opus, George Orwell observed that ``The party told you to 
reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most 
essential command.'' That's an exact blueprint for these lies. Those 
propagating these lies may be at war with truth, but I'm not. I still 
believe in truth and in fact.
  Here is the truth and the fact. The ham-fisted decisions of the Trump 
administration will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but 
could hasten that outcome.
  Here is the truth. War with Iran will not benefit us. War endangers 
our troops, leads to death and misery, and harms our allies.
  Here is the fact. Americans do not want another damn war.
  War powers belong to Congress, not the President, and it is our job 
here to defend our constitutional prerogative. And we did this by 
passing a war powers resolution.
  I believe in truth. I do not believe in unnecessary war. And I stand 
with this House that today made a big statement for both. To correct 
the record of lies, I include in the Record this New York Times article 
``References in Address to 2013 Deal Had Holes'' by Linda Qiu from 
January 9, 2020.

                [From The New York Times, Jan. 8, 2020]

 Fact Check--Trump's Inaccurate Statements About the Conflict With Iran

                             (By Linda Qiu)

       President Trump, responding during a White House address on 
     Wednesday to the missile strikes by Iran, assailed the 
     nuclear agreement reached by his predecessor and praised 
     American military might. The 10-minute address contained 
     numerous inaccuracies and claims that lacked evidence. Here's 
     a fact check.
     What Mr. Trump said:
       ``Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the 
     foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were 
     given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.''
       This is misleading. The agreement reached by Iran, the 
     United States and a number of other nations to constrain 
     Tehran's nuclear program did not directly provide American 
     money to Iran, but it did release about $100 billion in 
     previously frozen Iranian assets. Much of the amount was tied 
     up by debt obligations, for example, $20 billion to China for 
     financing projects in Iran. Estimates for the actual amount 
     available to Iran range from $35 billion to $65 billion.
       A separate $1.7 billion transfer of cash to Iran was to 
     settle a decades-long dispute and was agreed to in 
     negotiations that happened parallel to the nuclear deal. 
     Before the 1979 revolution, Iran's shah had paid $400 million 
     for American military goods but, after he was overthrown, the 
     equipment was never delivered. The clerics who seized control 
     demanded the money back, but the United States refused. The 
     additional $1.3 billion is interest accumulated over 35 
     years.
       Iran and other parties to the nuclear accord signed an 
     interim agreement in 2013, but the formal agreement was not 
     reached until 2015. The White House did not respond when 
     asked for evidence of increased Iranian ``hostilities.''
       It is worth noting that before Mr. Trump withdrew the 
     United States from the nuclear agreement in 2018, his 
     administration repeatedly certified that Iran was in 
     compliance.
       Afterward, as his so-called maximum-pressure campaign on 
     Iran continued, tensions between the United States and Iran 
     ``escalated significantly,'' according to a recent 
     Congressional Research Service report. Mr. Trump's claim 
     blaming the nuclear accord for Iranian aggression rather than 
     his withdrawal from it is ``almost an inverted reality,'' 
     said Jim Walsh, a research associate at M.I.T.'s Security 
     Studies Program and an expert on nuclear issues and the 
     Middle East.
       He said that attacks by the four groups supported by Iran 
     and designated by some governments as terrorist 
     organizations--Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad 
     and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General 
     Command--actually declined after the nuclear deal.
       Attacks carried out by these groups decreased from more 
     than 80 in 2014 to six in 2017, before increasing to more 
     than 40 in 2018, according to the Global Terrorism Database 
     maintained by the University of Maryland's National 
     Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to 
     Terrorism. And while Iran has been a violent and 
     destabilizing force across the region, Mr. Trump's assertion 
     that Tehran had ``created hell'' lacked context in some 
     cases.
       Iranian aid to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in that 
     country's civil war and Tehran's backing of Houthi rebels in 
     Yemen both predate the signing of the nuclear agreement, 
     formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
       ``There's nothing that Iran was doing after J.C.P.O.A. that 
     it wasn't doing before,'' said Vali R. Nasr, a professor of 
     Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University and a State 
     Department official in the Obama administration.
       Calling Iran's backing of the Houthi rebels against the 
     Saudi Arabia-aligned government in Yemen terrorism is 
     ``devaluing the word to the point where it's meaningless,'' 
     said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on military affairs and the 
     Middle East at the Center for Strategic and International 
     Studies.
       As for Iran's activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. 
     Cordesman said, ``they were more aggressive there because 
     they were working to attack ISIS--as we were.''
     What Mr. Trump said:
       ``The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were 
     paid for with the funds made available by the last 
     administration.''
       This lacks evidence. The White House did not respond when 
     asked to substantiate this claim, and experts noted there was 
     no proof that Iranian assets unfrozen by the deal paid for 
     the missiles.
       ``There's a certain fungibility here,'' Mr. Walsh said. If 
     the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, ``took a 
     dollar on the street, did that fund the missile attack?'' he 
     added. ``That's not very useful from an analytical 
     perspective. Nor is the case that giving them money caused 
     them to attack the U.S.''
       ''We have no indication,'' Mr. Cordesman said, ``whether 
     these missiles are funded by the money from the J.C.P.O.A.''
       The director of national intelligence's annual report on 
     worldwide threats in 2019 did note that Iran continued to 
     develop and improve military capabilities including ballistic 
     missiles, but it did not tie those efforts to the nuclear 
     deal. Furthermore, the annual reports warned of the same 
     efforts in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012 and before.
       Critics of the Iran deal, including Mr. Trump, have long 
     argued that it was inadequate because it did not address 
     Iran's ability to develop ballistic missiles. Those 
     restrictions have instead been established by the United 
     Nations Security Council resolutions.
       The diplomatic accord was an arms deal with a very narrow 
     aim of curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, ``not a 
     nonaggression pact, not a form of a friendship treaty,'' Mr. 
     Nasr of Johns Hopkins said. ``Whether there could have been 
     more in the deal, of course. But piling in expectations is 
     disingenuous.''

[[Page H114]]

  

     What Mr. Trump said:
       ``The very defective J.C.P.O.A. expires shortly anyway and 
     gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout.''
       This is exaggerated. The major provisions limiting Iran's 
     nuclear capabilities last a decade or longer. And the 
     agreement increased the ``breakout'' period--the time it 
     would take Iran to produce enough fuel for one weapon--to at 
     least a year from an estimated two to three months. If the 
     deal had been left in place and fully adhered to, Iran would 
     not have been able to achieve nuclear breakout until 2030.
       The agreement also prohibits Iran from pursuing nuclear 
     weapons permanently. ``Iran reaffirms that under no 
     circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any 
     nuclear weapons,'' the first paragraph of the deal reads.
       The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a vocal 
     critic of the deal, said it ``largely expires after only 15 
     years.'' Under the deal's terms, Iran agreed not to use more 
     than 5,060 centrifuges to enrich uranium--and not to pursue 
     research and development on centrifuges--for 10 years. Limits 
     on enrichment levels, facilities and stockpiles last for 15 
     years, according to a report from the Congressional Research 
     Service.
       Under the terms of the accord, Iran also agreed to convert 
     a deep underground enrichment facility into a ``technology 
     center'' that cannot contain nuclear material and where the 
     number of centrifuges is limited for 15 years. Several 
     provisions on plutonium, including forbidding the 
     construction of new heavy water reactors, last for 15 years.
       Inspectors are to monitor centrifuges and related 
     infrastructure for 15 years, verify inventory for 20 years 
     and monitor uranium mines for 25 years.
     What Mr. Trump said:
       ``We are now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas 
     anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need 
     Middle East oil.''
       This is misleading. The United States has been the largest 
     producer of oil and gas in the world since 2013, a trend that 
     began under the Obama administration thanks in large part to 
     advances in shale drilling techniques.
       The Energy Information Administration projected in January 
     2019 that the United States will produce more energy than it 
     imports this year, the first time since 1950. But that is not 
     the same thing as not importing oil from the Middle East at 
     all. In 2018, the United States imported more than 1.5 
     million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf.
     What was said:
       ``The American military has been completely rebuilt under 
     my administration at a cost of $2.5 trillion.''
       This is exaggerated. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the 
     total defense budgets of the past four fiscal years: $606 
     billion the 2017 fiscal year (which began before Mr. Trump 
     took office), $671 billion in 2018, $685 billion in 2019 and 
     $718 billion in 2020. But the amount spent on procurement--
     buying and upgrading equipment--was about $562 billion over 
     that period.
       Mr. Trump's use of the phrase ``completely rebuilt'' is 
     somewhat subjective. Though the Trump administration has 
     invested in operational readiness over the past few years, 
     there are signs that the military continues to face 
     substantial challenges in addressing an array of threats from 
     around the world.
       For example, the military earned a middling grade of 
     ``marginal'' from the conservative Heritage Foundation's 
     annual index of strength, based on factors like shortages in 
     personnel and aging equipment. The think tank noted that 
     American forces are probably capable of meeting the demands 
     of a single major regional conflict but ``would be very hard-
     pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to 
     handle two nearly simultaneous major regional 
     contingencies.''
     What was said:
       ``Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS 
     and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of 
     ISIS, al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for so much death.''
       This is exaggerated. The Islamic State lost its final 
     territories in March 2019, ending the physical ``caliphate,'' 
     but the terrorist group has not been destroyed. The recent 
     confrontation with Iran has halted the United States' 
     campaign against ISIS. Just this week, Defense Secretary Mark 
     T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, said that the fight against the group was 
     continuing.
       Mr. Trump alluded to the organization's endurance in his 
     speech when he said: ``ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The 
     destruction of ISIS is good for Iran. And we should work 
     together on this and other shared priorities.''

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, according to ABC News, General 
Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said that the ``Dec. 27 
attack on the Iraqi base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. civilian 
contractor and wounded several U.S. and Iraqi forces . . . was designed 
and intended to kill, and [Soleimani] approved it. I know that 100 
percent.''
  General Milley said that the trigger for the drone strike that killed 
Soleimani was ``clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a 
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, 
weeks, and months,'' and that the administration would have been 
``culpably negligent'' if it didn't act.
  Former Obama Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on NBC's 
Meet the Press that ``whether Soleimani was a terrorist or a general in 
a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, 
he was a lawful military objective.''
  Mr. Speaker, Soleimani is responsible for killing over 600 Americans 
and disabling thousands more. He is directly responsible for massive 
death and injury of innocent civilians in the region. In the last two 
months alone, he orchestrated 11 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq--
killing an American contractor and wounding four soldiers--and for the 
attack on our embassy in Baghdad.
  After yesterday's classified briefing by America's top diplomatic, 
military and intelligence leaders, I came away convinced that the 
action by President Trump was justified, proportionate and above all 
necessary to protect American lives.
  That said, it is astonishing that the resolution under consideration 
by the House today has absolutely no legal power, is non-binding--and 
by design can neither be signed nor vetoed by the President.
  Remarkably, the text of H. Con. Res. 83 also sends a mixed message. 
While purporting to ``terminate the use of United States Armed Forces 
to engage in hostilities in or against Iran. . . .'' the non-binding 
resolution goes on to say that such a prohibition is null and void if 
``such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend 
against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its 
territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the 
requirement of the War Powers Resolution.''
  Imminent armed attack on our Armed Forces and diplomats is precisely 
the Trump Administration's justification for the drone strike against 
Soleimani.
  According to the Council on Foreign Relations, no president used 
drone strikes more than President Obama who ordered 542 drone strikes 
killing an estimated 3,797 people including 324 civilians.''
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, this body will vote to reaffirm the 
fact that Congress has the sole power to declare war, as laid out in 
the Constitution. After nearly two decades at war, President Trump has 
further risked the safety and security of America, our servicemembers, 
and our allies by escalating tensions with Iran to a dangerous new 
level. The Trump Administration's military airstrike targeting 
highlevel Iranian officials is just another example of President Trump 
undermining our national security by acting recklessly and without 
sound legal authority or reason. His rash decisions have made America 
less safe. War must always be our last recourse, and any escalation 
that brings our nation closer to a third disastrous war in the Middle 
East is unacceptable. The American people will not stand for it.
  The War Powers Act exists as a safeguard against intensifying 
military actions that can accidentally lead to war. It ensures that a 
President will engage in a public conversation with the American people 
about the merits of war, before deploying their loved ones. The Trump 
Administration must now recognize Congress's authority as a coequal 
branch of government and request, as well as justify, authorization for 
any future military activity against Iran. Additionally, the 
Administration must work with Congress to ensure an immediate, 
effective deescalation strategy that prevents further violence.
  While I am proud to support the War Powers Resolution, this must be 
the first of many steps to reassert Congress's responsibilities under 
Article 1 of the Constitution. I opposed the 2002 Iraq Authorization 
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and have worked for the last 
decade to repeal it, including most recently voting against the 
National Defense Authorization Act when it failed to include a House-
passed repeal. I was pleased the Speaker announced plans for the House 
to pass Congresswoman Barbara Lee's resolution to finally repeal the 
2002 AUMF and Congressman Ro Khanna's legislation to prohibit funding 
for military action against Iran not authorized by Congress. I am proud 
to cosponsor both of these bills. We owe it to our military and 
civilian personnel, our allies, and every American to ensure that 
Congress upholds its constitutional authority to authorize the use of 
military force.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this Administration's impulsive and 
reckless behavior has made our nation and the men and women of our 
armed forces less safe. It has heightened the risk of a conflict in the 
Middle East and it has jeopardized our relationship with our allies--
both in the region and around the world.
  We should remember--not long ago, many Members of this body voted to 
ratify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Iran deal. That 
agreement was working, it was accepted by the world and, most of all, 
it was containing Iran from securing nuclear weapons.

[[Page H115]]

  President Trump and his Administration turned away from that 
agreement, setting off a chain reaction of events, which led to 
yesterday's attacks by Iran on American personnel who are serving in 
Iraq.
  We should be clear--no one in this body--Democrat or Republican--will 
mourn the loss of Soleimani. He was a monster who was responsible for 
horrible atrocities. However, we also have to question whether the 
actions taken by this Administration in killing him made our nation, 
our servicemembers and our allies safer or less safe.
  So where have the Trump Administration's policies brought us?
  The government of Iraq is asking U.S. forces to leave. After 
thousands of American lives were lost and billions of dollars spent, 
our ally in the fight against ISIS appears to be moving toward 
expelling U.S. troops.
  Iran has announced that it is resuming aggressive development of 
nuclear weapons. The people of Iran are coalescing behind their 
government, united in outrage from Soleimani's killing.
  The United States government needs a comprehensive, well-considered 
strategy for Iran. That strategy needs to be explained to Congress--and 
more importantly to the American people. The rationale for killing 
Soleimani must be fully and publicly explained. I believe the American 
people people--when they hear the evidence--will agree that this action 
was not necessary to prevent an imminent attack.
  Most of all, we can no longer allow diplomacy and national security 
to be conducted through Twitter.
  The Resolution we will vote on today would prevent the Administration 
from pursuing additional military action against Iran without properly 
consulting Congress.
  We, as a nation, must learn from the mistakes of the past. We cannot 
allow our country to ignite another war by conducing foreign policy in 
an irresponsible, impulsive manner.
  The young people wearing our uniform abroad count on us to be better. 
We have a moral obligation to the millions of innocent civilians living 
in the Middle East who could perish or lose loved ones or their homes 
if a broader conflict erupts.
  We must be better than this Administration has been. I urge my 
colleagues to support this Resolution.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United 
States approved airstrikes targeting General Qassem Soleimani, he did 
so without the authorization of, or consultation by, the Congress. 
Americans stationed abroad are now categorically less safe than they 
were before the president took action.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, no American will mourn the loss of 
General Soleimani--and nor should they. We are not here on the floor 
today to debate the merits of his assassination, but rather to address 
the failure of this Administration to adhere to the longstanding 
procedure of congressional consultation as mandated by the War Powers 
Resolution; specifically, the failure to properly and expeditiously 
articulate to the Congress any intelligence supporting the alleged 
threat which prompted this assassination.
  The Administration's actions have already endangered the lives of 
many American servicemembers, diplomats, and foreign service officers. 
I fear that the path we are on now, one lacking a coherent strategy 
moving forward, will only add to the instability of the region and lead 
to an extended conflict for which we are not prepared.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply reaffirms to the president and to 
the public Congress's role in authorizing the use of military force. As 
representatives of Americans from every corner of the country, we 
deserve to have our voices heard in a serious discussion on the 
implications of yet another conflict in the Middle East.
  I plan to vote in favor of the resolution and would urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 781, the previous question is ordered on 
the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of H. Con. Res. 83 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5078.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 194, not voting 13, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--224

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Buchanan
     Carter (TX)
     Crawford
     Fitzpatrick
     Hunter
     Johnson (OH)
     Kind

[[Page H116]]


     Kirkpatrick
     Loudermilk
     Serrano
     Simpson
     Torres (CA)
     Walker

                              {time}  1801

  Mr. CRENSHAW changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________