[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S32-S33]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Iran

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, in the aftermath of the U.S. 
military operation that took out Iranian General Soleimani, we need to 
be asking the right questions and remain clear-eyed about what might 
happen next.
  I have grown increasingly concerned about the strike against 
Soleimani and what it might mean for the safety of American troops in 
the region and the future of America's involvement in the Middle East. 
The President has promised that he would not drag the American people 
into another endless war in the Middle East. The President's actions, 
however, have seemingly increased the risk that we could be dragged 
into exactly such a war.
  Unfortunately, this contradiction is far too typical of how the 
President has conducted foreign policy over the last 3 years. The 
President's decision making has been erratic, and it has been 
impulsive, without regard to the long-term consequences of America's 
actions abroad. He prefers reality show diplomacy and photo ops with 
foreign leaders to substantive progress. As a result, the President's 
foreign policy has been dangerously incompetent.
  When you look at nearly every hotspot around the globe, he has made

[[Page S33]]

the situation worse, not better. North Korea--3 years after failed 
``negotiations,'' North Korea remains belligerent, defiant, and intent 
on developing ICBMs. Syria--after years of sacrifice and struggle 
against ISIS, one impulsive decision to withdraw our troops risks 
undoing all our progress. Russia--every meeting the President holds 
with Putin always seems to result in Putin's coming out ahead. We are 
now at risk of the situation with Iran heading for a similar 
deterioration.
  The President's foreign policy actions so far in North Korea, in 
Syria, in Russia, and just about everywhere else can be described in 
two words: ``erratic'' and ``impulsive.'' I am worried that a few 
months from now his Iran policy will be described in exactly the same 
way.
  As the President's circle of advisers has gotten smaller and more 
insular and as nearly all of the dissident voices have been forced out 
of the administration, there seems to be no one left to tell the 
President no. At times like this, skeptical voices need to ask the 
right questions, and Congress--Congress must provide a check on the 
President and assert our constitutional role in matters of war and 
peace.
  In my view, President Trump does not--does not--have authority for a 
war with Iran. There are several important pieces of legislation by 
both Senators Kaine and Sanders to limit further escalation with Iran 
and assert Congress's prerogative on these matters. Both should receive 
votes in the Senate.
  I plan to ask pointed questions of this administration at a briefing 
for the Gang of 8 later this afternoon. We need answers to some crucial 
questions, and there are many. Here are the two that are most on 
Americans' minds: What are Iran's most probable responses to the strike 
on Soleimani? Are we prepared for each of these responses, and how 
effective will our counterresponses be?
  There was some alarming confusion yesterday about the military's 
position on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq. What, in truth, does the 
Soleimani strike mean for the long-term stability of Iraq and our 
presence there? How does the administration plan to prevent an 
escalation of hostilities and the potential for large-scale 
confrontation with Iran in the Middle East? These are just some of the 
questions the administration has to answer. The safety and security of 
our American troops and of the American people are at stake.