[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H78-H92]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 83, IRAN WAR POWERS 
                               RESOLUTION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 781

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 83) directing the President pursuant to section 
     5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of 
     United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or 
     against Iran. All points of order against consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution are waived. The amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The concurrent 
     resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the concurrent 
     resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, 
     as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except two hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       Sec. 2.  Section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546) shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred 
     Sixteenth Congress to a measure respecting Iran.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 781, providing for consideration of 
H. Con. Res. 83 under a closed rule. The resolution also provides 1 
hour of general debate, controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Madam Speaker, the question before us today is very simple: Should 
President Trump be allowed to send the United States hurtling toward 
war with Iran without prior congressional approval?
  It is a question we must wrestle with following the President's 
actions last Thursday. That is when he ordered the lethal drone attack 
on Iraqi soil that killed Iranian General Soleimani. The outgoing Prime 
Minister has said the strike was carried out without Iraqi permission 
or knowledge. It was done without any plan for the consequences in the 
region or the world. And, more troubling still, it was carried out 
without any input from the people's Representatives here in Congress.
  Think about that.
  Madam Speaker, just a month ago, Iran was staring down some of the 
most intense antigovernment protests in a decade. Thousands took to the 
streets of Tehran to express growing frustration and anger with their 
leaders.
  But what a difference a month makes. Protestors--men, women, and 
children--have again taken to the streets of Tehran. Only this time, 
their anger wasn't directed at their own leaders; it was directed at 
the United States of America--all because of the President's unilateral 
decision.
  Madam Speaker, that is what happens when monumental decisions of war 
and peace are made in a vacuum with no regard for the consequences. 
Things usually don't go very well.
  Rather than protect our national security and stabilize the region, 
President Trump's reckless decision to strike Soleimani united Iran. It 
has led to retaliatory strikes on two bases used by U.S. and coalition 
forces in Iraq, and it has put our troops and diplomats serving 
overseas in greater danger.
  Now, make no mistake: This decision has endangered all Americans 
everywhere. Hardliners are emboldened; 4,000 more U.S. troops have been 
deployed to the region; operations against ISIS have been suspended; 
the Iraqi Parliament has voted to kick American troops out of Iraq--all 
because of the brash decision of one man: the President of the United 
States.
  Madam Speaker, there was no question that Soleimani was a ruthless 
military commander. He had American, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and 
Yemeni blood on his hands. But that is not up for debate today, nor is 
the question of whether or not killing him was a good or bad idea.
  The President of the United States assassinated a high-level foreign 
military commander without asking or even notifying Congress 
beforehand.
  Madam Speaker, with little evidence, the President claims his actions 
prevented an imminent threat, but the American people have heard that 
one before. We remember the stories about weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq. We remember the tens of thousands of American soldiers who 
paid the price for that deception.
  Madam Speaker, is this Congress going to sit by and allow that to 
happen in Iran, or are we going to ensure that this body acts before a 
war begins that could continue long after President Trump leaves 
office?
  Now, the Constitution is clear; it is crystal clear. Article I, 
Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war, but President Trump 
treated Congress as if it were an afterthought in a decision that has 
destabilized the region and shaken the world.
  More than 4,000 of our brave men and women are now being sent to the 
Persian Gulf, all without any input from the people's Chamber.
  We represent the brave young men and women who are deploying to 
Kuwait; we represent those deploying to Iraq; and we represent those 
deploying elsewhere across the Middle East. Each of us speaks for them, 
and we speak for their families, who are scared sick as their loved 
ones receive orders to deploy.
  Madam Speaker, we must summon the courage to be their voice.
  Now, I am glad that the United States and Iran have taken a step back 
from the brink of war, but what we heard from the President yesterday 
was more of the same bluster. It is clear, even after the briefing by 
the administration yesterday that many of us attended, that he has no 
clue at all--none--about what could come next.
  Now, make no mistake: The world is less safe because of Trump's 
chaotic foreign policy. The impacts of his strikes are still 
reverberating in the region and across the world, and we cannot sit 
silently by.
  The Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief, but it gives 
only Congress the power to declare war. The Founders knew that 
decisions of this magnitude required consultation between the branches 
of government, no matter who is in the White

[[Page H79]]

House, no matter who controls the majority on Capitol Hill.
  Our Democrats don't want war with Iran; most Republicans don't want 
war with Iran; and the American people certainly don't want a war with 
Iran. I think that would be catastrophic. We should be stopping costly, 
endless wars, not creating new ones.
  But whatever you believe, have the courage of your conviction, have 
the courage to vote, and that is what the underlying War Powers 
Resolution is all about. Congress needs to authorize any additional 
hostilities with Iran.
  Madam Speaker, these decisions aren't easy. I understand that. There 
is no more consequential vote than deciding whether to send men and 
women off to war and into harm's way. We weigh that decision knowing 
that, despite our hopes and prayers, lives are lost in combat.

                              {time}  1245

  Mothers and fathers could lose their children. Kids could be forced 
to grow up without a parent.
  But when we were sworn in, each of us took an oath to defend the 
Constitution, and that means wrestling with this very tough decision 
when necessary. The only question now is whether we have the guts to 
uphold that oath.
  Madam Speaker, with the Middle East held captive to the whims of a 
reckless President, and with the Commander in Chief without a clue, I 
pray that we, in Congress, have that courage.
  On behalf of our troops, their families, and the American people, I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Today, we consider H. Con. Res. 83 or, technically, we are 
considering the rule to consider H. Con. Res. 83, a resolution to 
remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran.
  But the thing is, we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran. Once 
again, we are considering a measure that will have no force of law. 
This is a nonbinding concurrent resolution.
  There was some debate in the Rules Committee last night on whether a 
concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution is, in fact, 
nonbinding. But in the Senate, a joint resolution has been introduced, 
making it likely that this House Concurrent Resolution will go no 
further than the action today.
  The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The 
Constitution also designates the President as the Commander in Chief of 
the Armed Forces. This sets up a conflict. The courts have not 
delineated the boundaries of these authorities or determined gaps 
between them that would either deny power to a President or to the 
Congress, one at the expense of the other.
  In Federalist Number 69, Alexander Hamilton argued the President's 
power resides only in the direction of the military as placed by law at 
his command. Presidents have long argued that their role as Commander 
in Chief, coupled with their inherent authority over foreign affairs, 
grants them the power to engage the Armed Forces, short of war, as they 
see fit.
  Since the founding of our country, the Supreme Court has ruled both 
that the President enjoys greater discretion when acting with respect 
to matters of foreign affairs and, that absent an authorization of 
action during wartime, any action by the President was void.
  Despite the struggle to maintain the separation of powers with regard 
to engaging our Armed Forces, the motivation underlying the inclusion 
in the Constitution of these powers for both the President and the 
Congress continues to this day: The desire to protect and defend the 
United States, its persons, and its assets.
  Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, largely in 
response to the experiences in Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers 
Resolution authorizes the engagement of the forces of the United States 
in hostilities when: There is a declaration of war; or there exists a 
specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by 
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its 
Armed Forces.
  To assess the current situation, let's examine what has led us to 
this point.
  In June of 2019, Iran shot down a surveillance aircraft that was 
flying over international waters near the Strait of Hormuz. This was an 
unmanned aerial drone.
  At the time, President Trump was advised by his military advisers to 
strike back, but the President opted not to strike back because it 
would have resulted in Iranian casualties, and he felt he could not 
justify creation of human casualties because of the loss of a machine. 
I agree with the President in that decision. I think his restraint was 
remarkable, but, certainly, exemplary.
  In September of 2019, Iranian cruise missiles struck nearly 20 
targets of critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. This 
disrupted a significant portion of Saudi oil production.
  In December of 2019, Iranian-backed forces in Iraq targeted military 
facilities where United States forces were co-located.
  On December 27, an Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, a U.S.-designated 
foreign terrorist organization, attacked a base in northern Iraq, and 
they killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four U.S. servicemembers.
  The United States responded, and it launched a retaliatory air strike 
in Iraq and Syria.
  On January 2, 2020, acting on intelligence of imminent threat to 
American interests, and in response to the persistent attack by 
Iranian-backed entities, the United States military killed General 
Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was the long-time leader of the Iran 
Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
  The Iran Revolutionary Guard is a U.S.-designated terrorist 
organization. It has been supporting proxy forces throughout the Middle 
East and attacking United States interests and allies for over a 
decade.
  Soleimani previously operated under strict security but, in recent 
years, he has moved much more freely and openly, believing that the 
United States did not have the willpower to be able to attack him. His 
atrocities include the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the 
attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat in the United States, among 
other things.
  President Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary 
Jeh Johnson, stated that General Soleimani was a legitimate military 
target.
  I do want to be clear. The last thing that I want to see and I 
suspect anyone in this body wants to see is our men and women committed 
to another conflict in the Middle East. We want those conflicts to end, 
as does the President.
  But, Madam Speaker, today the world is a safer place without General 
Soleimani. And who would want him to come back?

  Despite the disagreement in how further to engage in the Middle East, 
in the country of Iran, be it militarily or diplomatically, the last 
thing we should be doing is broadcasting our plans to the enemy.
  By passing this War Powers Resolution, directing the President to 
remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, a point 
that is, in itself in contention, we are effectively telling the 
Iranian mullahs that it is okay to push forward with their aggressive 
posturing. Rather than stating what the President cannot do, perhaps we 
should be authorizing what the President can do.
  Last night, in the Rules Committee, it became clear that both 
Republicans and Democrats agree that the world is a safer place without 
General Soleimani, and any war with Iran needs to be authorized by 
Congress seemed to be general agreement.
  Democrats want to maintain the separation of powers, as do I, but the 
question is, to what extent are we jeopardizing our safety?
  I believe Congress does need to authorize military action and 
maintain the separation of powers as intended by the Founders, but we 
don't need to broadcast it to the world.
  While we may be divided on the need for this resolution, let us 
recognize the privilege that we enjoy each and every day, being able to 
stand in this House and debate these issues without fear of

[[Page H80]]

retribution of our government. Those protesters in Iran did not enjoy 
that freedom. They cut off the internet and eliminated those 
protesters. That is why you don't see them anymore.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just respond to the gentleman when he says that this is a 
concurrent resolution here in the House and it is nonbinding and merely 
symbolic. Let me point out to him that the law states clearly that this 
sort of resolution reins in the President. The War Powers Resolution 
requires the President to stop using American forces and hostilities if 
Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
  Moreover, the Constitution gives war powers to the Congress, not to 
the President. And if both Houses pass this resolution, it is a clear 
statement that Congress is denying the President the authority to wage 
war, and that the President must come to Congress for an authorization 
prior to further hostilities.
  And by the way, we are not just pursuing a concurrent resolution. 
Senator Kaine of Virginia, over in the Senate, is pursuing a joint 
resolution; so we are covering all bases here because we are deeply 
concerned that we may end up in a war inadvertently here, and that 
Congress will have no role in it.
  Again, I would urge the gentleman to read the War Powers Resolution. 
I have a copy here, and the accompanying report when this resolution 
was signed into law. The report, with regard to consultation, is 
crystal clear that consultation is meant prior to introducing our 
forces and engaging into hostilities, which is something the President 
didn't even notify us of.
  And in terms of the President's exercising this remarkable restraint, 
I just have a very different opinion. Have you read his Twitter 
account? Have you been listening to him on TV as he brags about the 
shiny, expensive weapons we have that he would love to use? The 
rhetoric, the threat to bomb cultural sites, which is a war crime? I 
mean, the gentleman may be totally at ease with all of that, but I am 
not; and most of the American people are scared as hell of this 
President's rhetoric when it comes to a potential war with Iran.
  All we are saying here is that we ought to stand up for this 
institution, and stand with the Constitution, and make it very clear 
that if the President wants to go to war in Iran, that he needs to come 
to Congress to get that declaration, to get that authorization.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Shalala), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the War 
Powers Resolution to limit the President's military actions regarding 
Iran.
  As a Member of Congress, one of our most sacred votes is our vote to 
declare war. We, therefore, have an obligation to study the evidence 
and share concerns about the administration's decision to engage in 
hostilities against Iran. We have a duty to question its strategy, or 
lack of strategy, moving forward.
  My expertise, Madam Speaker, is not foreign policy, but I know Iran. 
I lived there. I worked there as a Peace Corps volunteer many years 
ago. I have been a student of Iranian history and politics for more 
than 3 decades.
  There is no question about Iran's role in sponsoring terrorism. 
Soleimani himself was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of 
Americans and thousands around the world. He actively worked to foment 
instability across the Middle East on behalf of the government of Iran.
  Nevertheless, the President of the United States, in his response to 
Iran, announced that he would commit a war crime by targeting Iran's 
extraordinary cultural sites. War crimes. No matter who is President of 
the United States, when he or she indicates that they are prepared to 
commit a war crime, then Congress better step up and reassert its 
authority under the Constitution.
  We must demand that the President justify any act, and that is what 
this resolution does. That is why I support it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for the 
purpose of response before I yield to Mr. Cole.
  And my response would be, had the gentleman from Massachusetts 
yielded to me for a question, my question was going to be, was he 
asking for unanimous consent to change the concurrent resolution to a 
joint resolution such that it could align and harmonize with the Senate 
activity and then, therefore, maybe accomplish something. But he 
didn't.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Dr. Burgess, 
for yielding.
  I rise, Madam Speaker, in reluctant opposition, quite frankly, to 
both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  As my good friend, Chairman McGovern knows, we have actually worked 
together to try and expand and reclaim war-making authority for the 
Congress of the United States, and I would offer and continue to work 
with him in that partnership. I think that is something that needs to 
be continued.
  I also think we have no difference that if we were to engage in a war 
with Iraq, it would require congressional authorization. And frankly, 
last night, in the Rules Committee, I offered a process whereby we 
could work together in a bipartisan fashion; that is, let's just follow 
the War Powers Resolution. Let's submit something to the committee of 
jurisdiction, which is actually the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have 
a deadline or a timeline laid out in the War Powers Act; they could 
operate within that. Within a matter of a few weeks we would then, in a 
very bipartisan manner, bring something to the floor.
  Let's contrast that with how this particular resolution came to the 
floor. We got it about 45 minutes before the Rules Committee meeting. 
It is written in the Speaker's Office; rewritten in the Speaker's 
Office, and it is sent down here to make a political point, not to 
actually do something that would substantively restore congressional 
war-making power. This is all politics; that is all it is.

                              {time}  1300

  The political aim here is for our friends to suggest that the 
President either wants war with Iran or has acted hastily, 
precipitously, and recklessly. Neither of those things is true.
  Frankly, our latest dispute with Iran begins with the decision by 
this administration appropriately to withdraw from the very ill-advised 
Iranian nuclear deal, a deal, by the way, that the majority of this 
House and the majority of the United States Senate opposed, but 
President Obama went ahead with it anyway.
  What has been the Iranian response to our withdrawal? A series of 
provocations to which, as my good friend Mr. Burgess pointed out, the 
President, by and large, has acted with remarkable restraint. Let's 
just go through some of those provocations.
  First, it was attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in the gulf. 
What was the President's response? Well, let's organize an 
international flotilla to defend these ships. He did not attack Iran.
  Next, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, we see strikes into 
Iraq itself. Particularly, we see an attack on Saudi Arabian oil 
refineries. What is the President's response? Well, let's not attack 
Iran. Let's send defensive capabilities from our country there and 
protect those sites.
  Then, we see attacks on American forces in Iraq. What is the 
President's response? As my friend pointed out, let's go after the Shia 
militias. Let's not attack Iran.
  Finally, after that, when the President responds, we see another 
attack. In that attack, as my friend pointed out, an American 
contractor died, and four American servicemembers were wounded. Again, 
the President responds by attacking Shia militia.
  Then, the next response, our embassy is assaulted. Thank goodness, no 
loss of life, but I think the President had had enough.
  By the way, just after that assault happens, who magically shows up 
in violation of a U.N. resolution in Iraq? Our good friend General 
Soleimani, a designated terrorist for 13 years, a person who has killed 
hundreds of Americans, wounded thousands more, not to

[[Page H81]]

mention the tens of thousands across the region. What does the 
President do? The President takes out a legitimate terrorist target. In 
Iran? No, the President doesn't want to do that. He does it in Iraq.
  Now, how anybody could have any doubt about the President's desire 
to, number one, strike at a terrorist, and, number two, avoid war, I 
will never know.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, passing this resolution, as my good friend 
Dr. Burgess suggested, sends the wrong message to the wrong people at 
precisely the wrong time.
  The President did the right thing here. He has acted in a restrained 
manner. He has endured, and our country has endured, endless 
provocations.
  We should reject this rule. Frankly, we should have a regular process 
where we actually go back to the committee of jurisdiction. We should 
absolutely reject the underlying resolution.
  Before I conclude, I want to mention I know my friend is very sincere 
in his opinions on expanding congressional war power. There is no doubt 
in my mind about it. We have worked on that before. I look forward to 
working with my friend on that issue again. This is the wrong vehicle, 
the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong consequences for our own 
country to pass this kind of legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma that I look forward to working with him on the war powers and 
other issues related to the executive branch encroaching on legislative 
powers in the future. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way and make 
some progress here.
  I include in the Record a January 4 New York Times article entitled 
``As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme 
Measure.''

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 2020]

 As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme Measure

     (By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman and Rukmini 
                              Callimachi)

       Washington.--In the chaotic days leading to the death of 
     Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful commander, 
     top American military officials put the option of killing 
     him--which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent 
     Iranian-led violence in Iraq--on the menu they presented to 
     President Trump.
       They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since 
     the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often 
     offered improbable options to presidents to make other 
     possibilities appear more palatable.
       After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 
     and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shiite 
     militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, 
     fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks 
     on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense 
     Department and administration officials.
       By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme 
     option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
       Mr. Trump made the decision, senior officials said on 
     Saturday, despite disputes in the administration about the 
     significance of what some officials said was a new stream of 
     intelligence that warned of threats to American embassies, 
     consulates and military personnel in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. 
     General Suleimani had just completed a tour of his forces in 
     Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and was planning an ``imminent'' 
     attack that could claim hundreds of lives, those officials 
     said.
       ``Days, weeks,'' Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Friday, when asked how 
     imminent any attacks could be, without offering more detail 
     other than to say that new information about unspecified 
     plotting was ``clear and unambiguous.''
       But some officials voiced private skepticism about the 
     rationale for a strike on General Suleimani, who was 
     responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops 
     over the years. According to one United States official, the 
     new intelligence indicated ``a normal Monday in the Middle 
     East''--Dec. 30--and General Suleimani's travels amounted to 
     ``business as usual.''
       That official described the intelligence as thin and said 
     that General Suleimani's attack was not imminent because of 
     communications the United States had between Iran's supreme 
     leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and General Suleimani showing 
     that the ayatollah had not yet approved any plans by the 
     general for an attack. The ayatollah, according to the 
     communications, had asked General Suleimani to come to Tehran 
     for further discussions at least a week before his death.
       Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike 
     Pence were two of the most hawkish voices arguing for a 
     response to Iranian aggression, according to administration 
     officials. Mr. Pence's office helped run herd on meetings and 
     conference calls held by officials in the run-up to the 
     strike.
       Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and General Milley declined 
     to comment for this article, but General Milley's 
     spokeswoman, Col. DeDe Halfhill, said, without elaborating, 
     that ``some of the characterizations being asserted by other 
     sources are false'' and that she would not discuss 
     conversations between General Milley and the president.
       The fallout from Mr. Trump's targeted killing is now 
     underway. On Saturday in Iraq, the American military was on 
     alert as tens of thousands of pro-Iranian fighters marched 
     through the streets of Baghdad and calls accelerated to eject 
     the United States from the country. United States Central 
     Command, which oversees American military operations in the 
     Middle East, said there were two rocket attacks near Iraqi 
     bases that host American troops, but no one was injured.
       In Iran, the ayatollah vowed ``forceful revenge'' as the 
     country mourned the death of General Suleimani.
       In Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump lashed back, promising to 
     strike 52 sites across Iran--representing the number of 
     American hostages taken by Iran in 1979--if Iran attacked 
     Americans or American interests. On Saturday night, Mr. Trump 
     warned on Twitter that some sites were ``at a very high level 
     & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, 
     and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.''
       The president issued those warnings after American spy 
     agencies on Saturday detected that Iranian ballistic missile 
     units across the country had gone to a heightened state of 
     readiness, a United States official said on Saturday night.
       Other officials said it was unclear whether Iran was 
     dispersing its ballistic missile units--the heart of the 
     Iranian military--to avoid American attack, or was mobilizing 
     the units for a major strike against American targets or 
     allies in the region in retaliation for General Suleimani' s 
     death.
       On Capitol Hill, Democrats voiced growing suspicions about 
     the intelligence that led to the killing. At the White House, 
     officials formally notified Congress of a war powers 
     resolution with what the administration said was a legal 
     justification for the strike.
       At Fort Bragg, N.C., some 3,500 soldiers, one of the 
     largest rapid deployments in decades, are bound for the 
     Middle East.
       General Suleimani, who was considered the most important 
     person in Iran after Ayatollah Khamenei, was a commanding 
     general of a sovereign government. The last time the United 
     States killed a major military leader in a foreign country 
     was during World War II, when the American military shot down 
     the plane carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.
       But administration officials are playing down General 
     Suleimani's status as a part of the Iranian state, suggesting 
     his title gave him cover for terrorist activities. In the 
     days since his death, they have sought to describe the strike 
     as more in line with the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the 
     Islamic State leader, who died in October in an American 
     commando raid in Syria.
       Administration officials insisted they did not anticipate 
     sweeping retaliation from Iran, in part because of divisions 
     in the Iranian leadership. But Mr. Trump's two predecessors--
     Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama--had rejected 
     killing General Suleimani as too provocative.
       General Suleimani had been in Mr. Trump's sights since the 
     beginning of the administration, although it was a Dec. 27 
     rocket attack on an Iraqi military base outside Kirkuk, which 
     left an American civilian contractor dead, that set the 
     killing in motion.
       General Milley and Mr. Esper traveled on Sunday to Mar-a-
     Lago, Mr. Trump's Palm Beach resort, a day after officials 
     presented the president with an initial list of options for 
     how to deal with escalating violence against American targets 
     in Iraq.
       The options included strikes on Iranian ships or missile 
     facilities or against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq. 
     The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General 
     Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable.
       Mr. Trump chose strikes against militia groups. On Sunday, 
     the Pentagon announced that airstrikes approved by the 
     president had struck three locations in Iraq and two in Syria 
     controlled by the group, Kataib Hezbollah.
       Jonathan Hoffman, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said the 
     targets included weapons storage facilities and command posts 
     used to attack American and partner forces. About two dozen 
     militia fighters were killed.
       ``These were on remote sites,'' General Milley told 
     reporters on Friday in his Pentagon office. ``There was no 
     collateral damage.''
       But the Iranians viewed the strikes as out of proportion to 
     their attack on the Iraqi base and Iraqis, largely member's 
     of Iranian-backed militias, staged violent protests outside 
     the American Embassy in Baghdad. Mr. Trump, who aides said 
     had on his mind the specter of the 2012 attacks on the 
     American compound in Benghazi, Libya, became increasingly 
     angry as he watched television images of pro-Iranian 
     demonstrators storming the embassy. Aides said he worried 
     that no response would look weak after repeated threats by 
     the United States.
       When Mr. Trump chose the option of killing General 
     Suleimani, top military officials, flabbergasted, were 
     immediately

[[Page H82]]

     alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on 
     American troops in the region. It is unclear if General 
     Milley or Mr. Esper pushed back on the president's decision.
       Over the next several days, the military's Special 
     Operations Command looked for an opportunity to hit General 
     Suleimani, who operated in the open and was treated like a 
     celebrity in many places he visited in the Middle East. 
     Military and intelligence officials said the strike drew on 
     information from secret informants, electronic intercepts, 
     reconnaissance aircraft and other surveillance tools.
       The option that was eventually approved depended on who 
     would greet General Suleimani at his expected arrival on 
     Friday at Baghdad International Airport. If he was met by 
     Iraqi government officials allied with Americans, one 
     American official said, the strike would be called off. But 
     the official said it was a ``clean party,'' meaning members 
     of Kataib Hezbollah, including its leader, Abu Mahdi al-
     Muhandis. Mr. Trump authorized the killing at about 5 p.m. on 
     Thursday, officials said.
       On Friday, missiles fired from an American MQ-9 Reaper blew 
     up General Suleimani's convoy as it departed the airport.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Morelle), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair and my 
colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me this 
minute.
  We begin the new year in turbulent and uncertain times, particularly 
with regard to Iran and the Middle East. Protecting our national 
interests and securing the safety and security of the American people 
must be the highest priorities of our government. I am gravely 
concerned the recent actions of the Trump administration have 
destabilized the region and undermined those priorities.
  Article I of the United States Constitution vests in the House and 
Senate the responsibility to declare war, to appropriate money for the 
national defense, and, in doing so, to ensure no President employs 
military action without careful consultation of and authorization by 
Congress.
  That is why it is so important that we take action to reaffirm these 
responsibilities by passing the resolution before us, which I am proud 
to cosponsor.
  The use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities 
against Iran must come only after thoughtful deliberation and approval 
by Congress. As we move forward, we must all seek to achieve a peaceful 
resolution that protects American interests at home and abroad.
  I join with all Americans in praying for the safety of our courageous 
servicemembers and urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a valuable member of the House Committee on 
Rules.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, I thank President Trump for making a decisive action to 
protect Americans. Thank you.
  The world now knows that Obama's appeasement strategy policies, 
including giving billions of dollars to Iran, are over. It didn't work. 
The world knows that when President Trump says we are not going to 
cross this red line, they know he means it.
  In Rules Committee last night and again today, I listened as my 
Democratic colleagues claim what this resolution is all about. They 
claim that it is about making sure Congress exerts its authority to 
approve future war against Iran. But that is not what this resolution 
does.
  In fact, let's read the title of this resolution. It says: 
``Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers 
Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage 
in hostilities in or against Iran.'' It doesn't say anything about 
future war.
  We do not currently have U.S. Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in 
or against Iran. If Democrats are serious about making sure Congress 
has its say in declaring war, they would follow the statutory 
guidelines as described by Representative Cole. They are already in 
there. Go to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Instead, Democrats have chosen to short circuit the process yet again 
to achieve a partisan objective.
  As a member of the Rules Committee, I saw the language of the 
resolution 45 minutes before the Rules Committee started. This is not a 
serious effort for such a serious subject.
  Here are the facts. Iran and Iranian-backed militias have escalated 
their attacks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, in June 2019, Iran shot down a U.S. drone. 
Trump said, no, we are not going to retaliate because no U.S. lives 
were lost. Iran attacked Saudi oil fields. Iran-backed militia killed a 
U.S. citizen and wounded four troops. Then, an Iran-backed militia 
attacked the U.S. Embassy.
  Soleimani was a terrorist designated by the Obama administration.
  Let me read very quickly what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said. He 
has had 40 years of military experience under all different 
administrations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. General Milley said the trigger for the drone strike that 
killed Soleimani was ``clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a 
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, 
weeks, and months,'' and that the administration would have been 
``culpably negligent'' if it did not act.
  This is a man who has been in the military for 40 years under 
different administrations, and you are going to doubt what he has to 
say?
  I thank President Trump for protecting American citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a January 8 
Vanity Fair article entitled ``There Is No Strategy: Diplomats React to 
Trump's Erratic, Narcissistic Iran Policy.''

                    [From Vanity Fair, Jan. 8, 2020]

     ``There Is No Strategy'': Diplomats React to Trump's Erratic, 
                        Narcissistic Iran Policy

                           (By Abigail Tracy)

       After the American drone strike and Iran's measured 
     retaliation, some State vets worry that Trump is a wild card, 
     the biggest danger: ``From a political standpoint,'' says 
     one, ``they have behaved a hell of a lot more rationally and 
     predictably than we have.''
       In the aftermath of Iran's strike against two airbases, in 
     retaliation for the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani 
     last week, a sigh of relief was breathed, but for what? That 
     there had been no casualties from Iran's cruise missiles was 
     a huge reason to be thankful. (U.S. officials have since 
     suggested this was intentional.) But there was also a sense 
     of relief that Trump had stepped back--as if he were the wild 
     card. The developments laid bare what diplomats I spoke with 
     identified as a discomforting reality in the Trump era. ``Up 
     is down and down is up,'' a former U.S. ambassador in the 
     region told me, noting Iran's decision to notify the Iraqis 
     ahead of the attack on Tuesday and Mohammad Javad Zarif's 
     message of detente in the face of Trump's bluster. ``Who 
     would've imagined that it's the American president who is a 
     crazy person gunning for war and the mullahs who are being 
     careful and deliberate and cautious . . . . They have done 
     terrible things--I am not going to defend the fact that the 
     country holds hostages and has absolutely supported terrorist 
     groups and those sorts of things--but from a political 
     standpoint, they have behaved a hell of a lot more rationally 
     and predictably than we have,'' this person added. ``Do you 
     take comfort in the fact that Iran is the rational actor or 
     does that scare the bejesus out of you even more?''
       A former Foreign Service Officer who worked on Iran under 
     Barack Obama echoed the point. ``I think it is interesting 
     that [Iran has taken] every opportunity to show that they're 
     actually more responsible than the U.S. president in 
     executing this conflict,'' this person said. ``It boggles the 
     mind to me that we are almost more concerned, I think, about 
     our own president than we are about the way others may 
     retaliate, which is really scary.''
       Diplomats I spoke with are clear-eyed in their belief that 
     Iran's retaliation for Soleimani is not complete; they are 
     bracing for--if not further military attacks--subsequent 
     responses, such as cyberattacks or even kidnappings. To a 
     fault, they, too, are not defending Iran's past malfeasance. 
     And Trump's position on the wake of the attacks is welcomed 
     by veterans of Foggy Bottom.

[[Page H83]]

     ``President Trump made the right decision not to respond to 
     Iran's missile attacks. There were no American casualties and 
     the Iranians are clearly signaling they don't want a war,'' 
     Nicholas Burns, the former ambassador to NATO, told me. The 
     problem is that Trump has thus far failed to chart a path 
     forward with Iran. Instead, he has shuttled between slamming 
     Iran, slighting his predecessor's signature Iran nuclear 
     deal, and patting himself on the back for the death of 
     Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the former leader of the 
     Islamic State whom the United States killed in October. ``His 
     speech was confusing about his strategy. It is not at all 
     clear if he intends to contain Iran through deterrence or to 
     weaken its government and seek regime change,'' Burns added. 
     ``He owes the American public, the Congress, and our allies a 
     much more specific and consistent game plan. Otherwise, it 
     will be difficult for him to gain domestic and allied 
     support.''
       As I reported in the aftermath of the Soleimani's killing 
     last week, a chief concern within the diplomatic ranks was 
     that the Trump administration, still lacking a coherent 
     foreign policy, had failed to adequately contemplate and 
     prepare for the international and Iranian response to the 
     airstrike against the top Iranian general. Indeed, the Trump 
     administration certainly appeared to be caught flat-footed 
     when the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the 
     country over the weekend. While asserting that the killing of 
     Soleimani left Americans safer, Secretary of State Mike 
     Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have yet to detail 
     the imminent threat they claim the Iranian general posed to 
     U.S. interests. And Trump's remarks on Wednesday arguably 
     raised more questions than they answered. As the former 
     ambassador in the region put it, ``There is no strategy. It 
     is satisfying Trump's ego at every step. It's all it is for 
     us, there is zero strategy and it's all strategy on Iran's 
     side.''
       Beyond his ``America First'' tagline, Trump has failed to 
     formulate anything resembling a coherent foreign policy. 
     Rather, he has a domestic policy that influences American 
     posturing abroad. The clearest through line in Trump's 
     various foreign policy decisions can largely be summed up as 
     ``the opposite of what Obama did.'' But this lack of 
     coherence is particularly troubling in the Middle East and is 
     amplified by the reality that he's surrounded by hawks with 
     hard-ons for toppling the Iranian regime, like Pompeo. ``The 
     most frustrating thing is that this is entirely of his own 
     making. You think about where we were less than five years 
     ago, when we got to the deal. Things certainly weren't 
     perfect by any means. They were still causing a lot of harm 
     and doing things against our interests in the region, but 
     compare that to where we are today and it is so entirely 
     avoidable,'' the former Foreign Service officer told me. 
     ``The lack of a strategy continues to be the most dangerous 
     thing we can do in the Middle East.''
       A former high-ranking State Department official expressed 
     similar dismay. ``Foreign policy isn't well-done on impulse. 
     Because so much is intertwined . . . . It requires the 
     ability to understand the trade-offs and possible longer-term 
     impacts. Never easy. But this team has no ability to do 
     that,'' they told me. ``If I were a military family member, 
     I'd really worry that our troops are being sent out with no 
     clear plan or mission. Not a comforting thought.''
       If Trump really does have an appetite for diplomacy, that's 
     undeniably a positive development. Diplomats stress that now 
     is the time for it, and the Iranians do seem to be signaling 
     a desire deescalate. ``Now we're in the time of intense 
     diplomacy, where around the world leaders are figuring out, 
     `If you do this, I do that' and 'What will be the response of 
     X if we do Y,' '' a former senior U.S. official told me. But, 
     this person added, ``The only ones not taking part are the 
     Americans.'' Instead, ``America is content with a two-
     dimensional policy: We take this act, we stand still and 
     watch what happens. The other countries are at least trying 
     to be three-dimensional, adding the element of time, 
     projecting to the not-too-distant future which advantages are 
     to be gained.''
       In an ideal world, Burns said, Trump would open a reliable 
     diplomatic channel to Tehran. ``We should want to be able to 
     deliver tough and clear messages to its government. And it 
     would be smart to offer Iran a diplomatic off-ramp so that we 
     can end the possibility of a wider war that is in neither of 
     our interests,'' he said. ``Trump's disinterest in real 
     diplomacy is a significant disadvantage for the U.S.''
       Confronting a president who has repeatedly demonstrated a 
     desire to dive into military conflict before diplomacy, 
     Congress is grappling with how to restrain Trump. California 
     congressman Ro Khanna told me the attacks on Tuesday increase 
     ``the urgency for Congress to act. We need to engage in de-
     escalation and a cease-fire to end the cycle of violence.'' 
     Currently on the table are a few measures House Democrats 
     hope can curb Trump's authority to attack Iran. Among them 
     are a War Powers Resolution and a bill drafted by Khanna and 
     Senator Bernie Sanders that would defund any offensive action 
     in Iran and require any such action to have Congressional 
     authorization.
       Khanna told me that the Democratic caucus is unified and 
     that he has been in talks with Speaker Nancy Pelosi about 
     timing and process. The House is expected to vote on a War 
     Powers Resolution, after which they would push his bill with 
     Senator Sanders. Currently, House leadership is figuring how 
     to craft a War Powers Resolution in a way that would prevent 
     Republicans from attaching a Motion to Recommit, which could 
     prevent it from reaching the Senate floor--as was the case 
     with the War Powers Resolution on Yemen. ``That is why it is 
     taking some time,'' Khanna explained. ``It is taking time to 
     figure out the procedural mechanisms with the parliamentarian 
     in the House and the Senate so that what we send over to the 
     Senate doesn't lose its War Powers privileged status. If it 
     loses its privileged status, then [Mitch] McConnell would 
     never call it up.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to the gentlewoman. I urge the gentlewoman, who read 
a couple of lines from the resolution, as I urge all of my colleagues, 
to read the entire resolution.
  This is pretty simple. Basically, it says that if we go to war with 
Iran, Congress ought to have a say in it. Congress ought to do what the 
Constitution requires us to do.
  I don't know why that is a radical idea, but if my friends want to go 
to war with Iran, they have to have the guts to come to the floor to 
debate it and vote on it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, the President cannot unilaterally go 
to war with Iran, nor are we safer since January 2, 2020, after having 
targeted and killed the second-in-command of Iran. The American people, 
as well as our troops, are in more jeopardy.
  In 2002, I was here, and I offer these words from my statement on the 
floor regarding President Bush. ``Always a question of the greatest 
importance, our decision today,'' in 2002, ``is further weighted by the 
fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine 
that gives a President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive 
first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic 
options.''
  I further went on to say that ``our own intelligence agencies report 
that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack 
from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories.''
  Proven right, endless war, continuous loss of life of our treasured 
young men and women and many injured--this resolution and rule are 
imperative to assert constitutional authority to ensure the protection 
of the American people.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), a valuable member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I join my colleagues in expressing the will to have an honest debate 
of the War Powers Act, should the majority party choose to do so.
  Before I move any further, I submit for the Record a report from the 
Director of National Intelligence on Barack Obama's use of drones, an 
average of 67 drone strikes a year over his first 7 years in office, 
killing an average of six enemy combatants a week, wherein the majority 
said absolutely nothing about it at the time.

Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside 
                      Areas of Active Hostilities

       In accordance with the President's direction and consistent 
     with the President's commitment to providing as much 
     information as possible to the American people about U.S. 
     counterterrorism activities, the Director of National 
     Intelligence (DNI) is releasing today a summary of 
     information provided to the DNI about both the number of 
     strikes taken by the U.S. Government against terrorist 
     targets outside areas of active hostilities and the assessed 
     number of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from 
     those strikes. ``Areas of active hostilities'' currently 
     include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

   Summary of U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active 
       Hostilities between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015

       Total number of strikes against terrorist targets outside 
     areas of active hostilities: 473.
       Combatant deaths: 2372-2581.
       Non-combatant deaths: 64-116.
       The assessed range of non-combatant deaths provided to the 
     DNI reflects consideration of credible reports of non-
     combatant deaths drawn from all-source information, including 
     reports from the media and non-

[[Page H84]]

     governmental organizations. The assessed range of non-
     combatant deaths includes deaths for which there is an 
     insufficient basis for assessing that the deceased is a 
     combatant.


      U.S. Government Post-Strike Review Processes and Procedures

       The information that was provided to the DNI regarding 
     combatant and non-combatant deaths is the result of processes 
     that include careful reviews of all strikes after they are 
     conducted to assess the effectiveness of operations. These 
     review processes have evolved over time to ensure that they 
     incorporate the best available all-source intelligence, media 
     reporting, and other information and may result in 
     reassessments of strikes if new information becomes available 
     that alters the original judgment. The large volume of pre- 
     and post-strike data available to the U.S. Government can 
     enable analysts to distinguish combatants from non-
     combatants, conduct detailed battle damage assessments, and 
     separate reliable reporting from terrorist propaganda or from 
     media reports that may be based on inaccurate information.


 Discrepancies Between U.S. Government and Non-Governmental Assessments

       In releasing these figures, the U.S. Government 
     acknowledges that there are differences between U.S. 
     Government assessments and reporting from non-governmental 
     organizations. Reports from non-governmental organizations 
     can include both aggregate data regarding non-combatant 
     deaths as well as case studies addressing particular strikes, 
     and generally rely on a combination of media reporting and, 
     in some instances, field research conducted in areas of 
     reported strikes. Although these organizations' reports of 
     non-combatant deaths resulting from U.S. strikes against 
     terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities vary 
     widely, such reporting generally estimates significantly 
     higher figures for non-combatant deaths than is indicated by 
     U.S. Government information. For instance, for the period 
     between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015, non-
     governmental organizations' estimates range from more than 
     200 to slightly more than 900 possible non-combatant deaths 
     outside areas of active hostilities.
       Consistent with the requirements applicable to future 
     reporting under Section 3(b) of the Executive Order ``United 
     States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address 
     Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of 
     Force,'' the information we are releasing today addresses 
     general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike 
     assessments from the United States Government and credible 
     reporting from non-governmental organizations regarding non-
     combatant deaths and does not address specific incidents. 
     There are a number of possible reasons that these non-
     governmental organizations' reports of the number of 
     noncombatants killed may differ from the U.S. Government 
     assessments, based on the information provided to the DNI.
       First, although there are inherent limitations on 
     determining the precise number of combatant and non-combatant 
     deaths, particularly when operating in non-permissive 
     environments, the U.S. Government uses post-strike 
     methodologies that have been refined and honed over the years 
     and that use information that is generally unavailable to 
     non-governmental organizations. The U.S. Government draws on 
     all available information (including sensitive intelligence) 
     to determine whether an individual is part of a belligerent 
     party fighting against the United States in an armed 
     conflict, taking a direct part in hostilities against the 
     United States, or otherwise targetable in the exercise of 
     national self-defense. Thus, the U.S. Government may have 
     reliable information that certain individuals are combatants, 
     but are being counted as non-combatants by nongovernmental 
     organizations. For example, further analysis of an 
     individual's possible membership in an organized armed group 
     may include, among other things: the extent to which an 
     individual performs functions for the benefit of the group 
     that are analogous to those traditionally performed by 
     members of a country's armed forces; whether that person is 
     carrying out or giving orders to others within the group; or 
     whether that person has undertaken certain acts that reliably 
     connote meaningful integration into the group.
       Second, according to information provided to the DNI, U.S. 
     Government post-strike reviews involve the collection and 
     analysis of multiple sources of intelligence before, during, 
     and after a strike, including video observations, human 
     sources and assets, signals intelligence, geospatial 
     intelligence, accounts from local officials on the ground, 
     and open source reporting. Information collected before a 
     strike is intended to provide clarity regarding the number of 
     individuals at a strike location as well as whether the 
     individuals are engaged in terrorist activity. Post-strike 
     collection frequently enables U.S. Government analysts to 
     confirm, among other things, the number of individuals killed 
     as well as their combatant status. The information is then 
     analyzed along with other all-source intelligence reporting. 
     This combination of sources is unique and can provide 
     insights that are likely unavailable to non-governmental 
     organizations.
       Finally, non-governmental organizations' reports of 
     counterterrorism strikes attributed to the U.S. Government--
     particularly their identification of non-combatant deaths--
     may be further complicated by the deliberate spread of 
     misinformation by some actors, including terrorist 
     organizations, in local media reports on which some non-
     governmental estimates rely.
       Although the U.S. Government has access to a wide range of 
     information, the figures released today should be considered 
     in light of the inherent limitations on the ability to 
     determine the precise number of combatant and non-combatant 
     deaths given the non-permissive environments in which these 
     strikes often occur. The U.S. Government remains committed to 
     considering new, credible information regarding non-combatant 
     deaths that may emerge and revising previous assessments, as 
     appropriate.

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, if we want to have an 
honest debate about the War Powers Act, then let's have an honest 
debate about the War Powers Act.
  Why didn't we hear anything from our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle about Libya when President Barack Obama took action that led 
to the death of Muammar Qadhafi? Why not Syria? Why not Yemen? Why is 
Iran individually spelled out in this resolution?
  The only reason Iran is singled out in this resolution is to take a 
political jab at President Trump for utilizing an airstrike to take out 
General Soleimani, a terrorist who was responsible for killing 
thousands of Americans, partner troops, and, yes, Iranians.
  While our colleagues are upset with the use of airstrikes to kill 
General Soleimani, I remind them that the Obama administration, 
according to their own Director of National Intelligence, conducted 
hundreds of airstrikes, averaging more than six kills a week between 
January 2009 and December 2015, and that was in areas of 
nonhostilities. That doesn't even include Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, 
which are classified numbers.
  Let's just be honest about what this is. This is another partisan 
attack against the President of the United States for killing General 
Soleimani, who was a terrorist in an area where the President had the 
absolute legal authority to operate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to the gentleman from Georgia, who I have a great 
deal of respect for.
  Let's be honest here. Many of us, contrary to what the gentleman just 
said, have been outspoken against unilateral interventions by the 
executive branch without notifying Congress, without seeking our 
approval on military authorization under Obama. I, for one, was 
critical of his drone attacks. I raised issues about our involvement in 
Syria.
  I include in the Record a statement that I made, saying that Congress 
should reconvene and debate and vote on a resolution with regard to 
what the Obama administration was doing in Libya.

                    [Press Release, March 23, 2011]

                Congressman McGovern Statement on Libya

       Washington, DC.--For several weeks now I have been calling 
     for an internationally-enforced no-fly-zone over Libya in 
     order to prevent Colonel Qadaffi from slaughtering his own 
     people. I agree with President Obama that U.S. ground troops 
     should not be committed to this effort, and that our 
     international partners should soon take the lead. Whether or 
     not Qadaffi remains the leader of Libya must, in the end, be 
     up to the Libyan people. I am troubled about pressure to 
     expand the military operation and the many unanswered 
     questions about Libyan opposition forces. I urge the House 
     leadership to call the Congress back into session as soon as 
     possible so that Congress can exercise its constitutional 
     responsibility to clearly spell out the mission and limits of 
     U.S. military engagement in Libya. And I urge the Obama 
     Administration to consult with Congress and to engage us at 
     every possible opportunity as this crisis continues to 
     unfold.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, some of us have been consistent on this 
through Democratic and Republican administrations. I take great 
exception when anybody tries to say that we are raising this issue just 
purely for political purposes.
  For me, it is not. For me, I have been consistent on this through 
Democratic and Republican administrations.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from 
Massachusetts setting the record straight. The war powers activity, the 
authorization

[[Page H85]]

of military force has been an issue that a number of us have been 
concerned with, Republican and Democrat, going back to the Clinton 
administration and activity in the Balkans, but what my friend from 
Massachusetts pointed out is that this reckless act by the President of 
the United States actually makes us less safe.
  With one act, he has been able to unite the opposition in Iran. 
Remember, they were demonstrating in the streets against the regime. 
And I have heard from friends of mine who have deep roots in Iran that 
this has probably set back the cause of reform years, if not decades, 
in Iran.
  We are less safe, not more.
  I strongly urge the approval of this resolution as a start to rein in 
the President's worst impulses, but we must also put in additional 
checks, by passing Representative Khanna's legislation to ensure no 
funds are used for an unauthorized war with Iran and Representative 
Lee's legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to get 
it right. And to take our friend, Mr. Cole's, word, we can move this 
forward. I see this as a beginning, and we can build on it, but rein in 
this administration.
  Send a strong signal. Approve this resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire the amount of time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a valuable member of the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution is insincere and unserious. It is 
insincere because this is just: We don't like the President and he took 
action, and we can't stand it.
  It is unserious, because if they really wanted to limit the actions 
of our government to defend our country and defend those in uniform, 
this wouldn't be a nonbinding resolution, they would limit it. If they 
want to limit it, go ahead and do it.
  For the people in America that say, ``Well, we don't know this 
Soleimani guy. How come we don't know him?'' That is a great question. 
How come they don't know?
  Well, let me introduce folks to him. He got busy with his work as a 
terrorist in Beirut, killing 241 marines; the Khobar Towers, killing 
Americans; hundreds of American personnel wearing uniforms dead by 
EFPs, explosively formed penetrators; and thousands maimed walking 
around the United States, walking around the Halls of this Congress. 
That is Soleimani.
  But they don't know him because this body, the executive branch, 
Republicans and Democrats, have sent their young men and women to war 
without dealing with this killer, this terrorist, because it was too 
hard, too hard in Iraq to deal with Iran, because it might make them 
mad, they might do something about it.
  Our colleagues say that the President is reckless, without a plan.
  Here is what is reckless: appeasement. Appeasement has gotten 
Americans killed, has gotten people around the globe killed because of 
this guy. What is the point of designating him a terrorist if you are 
not going to do anything about it?
  Doing the bidding of Iran on this floor is unacceptable. We don't 
want to be in a war, that is true, nobody wants to be in a war, but I 
have got a news flash for everybody: Iran slapped us in the face in 
1979 and they have been fighting with us ever since.
  Us saying we are not going to defend ourselves does not stop Iran 
from fighting the war that they have with us. Appeasing Iran will only 
kill more Americans. It hasn't worked.

  That is what is happening here today, Madam Speaker: the defense of 
the appeasement strategy of the last administration and administrations 
in the past.
  We cannot allow this strategy to continue and Americans to be killed 
or Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to read 
the resolution. This is about the future and it is about whether or 
not, if we go to war with Iran, whether or not Congress upholds its 
constitutional responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The President's policy towards Iran is to tear up diplomacy and 
embrace so-called maximum pressure.
  The most recent strike, far from making us safer, is making us more 
insecure.
  Think about the deliberate consequences from that act:
  One, the Iraqi street is demonstrating against the U.S., not against 
Iran, as they were before;
  Two, the Iranian street is demonstrating with the mullahs against the 
U.S. instead of against their own government;
  Three, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the United States from 
Iraq, jeopardizing our anti-ISIS mission;
  Number four, our military has suspended training for anti-ISIS 
activities in Iraq because of this strike;
  Number five, the Iran nuclear deal that the President tore up that 
Iranians complied with, they are now renouncing, so we are closer to a 
nuclear Iran than we were before.
  All of this has happened when the likelihood of Iran's further 
responding is grave.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, the gun is cocked and loaded.
  We cannot go to war without Congress being involved in the debate and 
the President telling us what his policy is going to be.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for immediate consideration of H. Res. 
783, honoring the members of the military and intelligence community 
for carrying out the mission that killed General Soleimani.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend, to explain the resolution.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that we can 
immediately consider my resolution to honor the hard work and 
dedication of the men and women who made the precision strike on Qasem 
Soleimani possible.
  This is an interesting crossroads we find ourselves in. After the 
successful response by the United States against the escalating 
aggression from the world's most active and deadly terrorist, Qasem 
Soleimani, our great country has found itself divided and unsure of 
itself.
  Instead of unity and resolve in the face of a clear and common enemy, 
we have division and self-doubt. What is worse, that division has been 
sourced from the leadership in this very body.
  While legitimate questions were raised--what authority was used, what 
was the reasoning, what sort of intelligence backed this decision--
those questions have long been answered clearly and convincingly.
  The President has clear authority, a duty in fact, to respond to 
attacks against American citizens and U.S. forces. That isn't my 
opinion; that is clear from Article II of the Constitution and the War 
Powers Resolution.
  The case is made even stronger when you consider this occurred 
entirely within Iraq, a place where we already have a lawful military 
operational footprint.

[[Page H86]]

  The reasoning is quite simple as well: We must make clear that the 
U.S. will not be attacked indefinitely, that we will respond, and that 
response will make you regret ever having hit us in the first place.
  The long history of General Soleimani's actions against the United 
States throughout the region, and the killing and maiming of thousands 
of America's sons and daughters, and indications of his future actions 
make this point even stronger.
  As to the intelligence, our CIA, our Director of National 
Intelligence, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly 
told us that this intelligence was some of the best they had ever seen, 
and it removed all doubt that Soleimani was planning large scale 
imminent attacks.
  These questions have been answered over and over and over, and yet my 
colleagues pretend not to hear those answers. After all, the mere 
thought of agreeing with and supporting our President is repugnant to 
them even when it is the right thing to do.
  So instead of applauding these actions that restored American 
deterrence, delivered justice to hundreds of dead American soldiers and 
their families, and severely weakened the terrorist organization IRGC 
Quds Force, my colleagues wring their hands and express regret and 
disappointment.
  Instead of applauding the men and women of our military standing in 
harm's way, instead of recognizing the tireless vigilance of our 
intelligence community, instead of acknowledging those who have spent 
years confronting the Iranian threat network directly, my colleagues in 
this Congress seek to undermine them.

  I take this personally, since I was one of those servicemembers for 
so many years.
  This threat is not new to us, though it may be new to those 
politicians who have lived comfortably and safely back home, now 
casting stones from ivory towers, relying on disingenuous judgments and 
false premises to make a false, politically-driven case to the American 
people.
  So I offer this resolution today in order to right that wrong. I 
offer this to demonstrate to the American people and our servicemembers 
and members of the intelligence community that this Congress does 
indeed stand by the decision to rid the world of America's enemies and 
those who seek to do us harm and stands by those who made justice 
possible.
  This resolution simply states the obvious: that General Soleimani was 
head of one of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations in the 
world that already committed numerous attacks against the United States 
and planned to carry out many more within days.
  This resolution rightfully congratulates our men and women who 
disrupted this evil chain of attacks, instead of wrongly suggesting to 
them that their actions were unauthorized and even immoral.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this 
resolution and put to rest once and for all the false implication that 
America cannot defend herself when necessary.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, late last week, President Trump ordered the 
assassination of a high-ranking Iranian official while he was in Iraq.
  This action threatens to cascade the United States into an ill-
advised, not authorized war with Iran, and is already setting into 
motion a series of disastrous unintended consequences for American 
security and interests in the Middle East.
  The President trashed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which 
Iran was following and that put in place the first real restraints on 
Iran's nuclear program. The world and America were safer under the 
JCPOA framework, period.
  Enter Trump, and now we see Iranian rockets firing, U.S. forces being 
pushed out of Iraq, and alliances strained as we all await further 
retaliations.
  Oh, history is replete with the misery befalling those poor empires 
who first fight and mistake that for might.
  This escalation with Iran must end, Congress must reassert its war 
powers authority, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and the Committee on Armed Forces.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Sometimes when I watch the debate, I wonder what happened to the 
confident America that I remember; that when a failing country 
threatens us, we actually respond with force instead of fear and run 
away.
  That said, this process argument that we are having is interesting, 
but as my colleague said earlier, maybe they forgot something.
  So I am going to urge defeat of the previous question, because I 
think in this resolution, something major was forgotten, maybe they can 
re-craft it, bring it back later, but that is this: I hear my friends 
on the other side of the aisle say that Mr. Soleimani was a bad guy and 
they are glad he is dead. However--process argument follows--I think 
something has been left out of this.
  When I was in Iraq in 2008 and 2009, I operated mostly against 
terrorist networks of a different nature, but about a quarter of my 
operations were against terrorist networks from Mr. Soleimani.
  So these attacks against Americans, we talked about the dead 
Americans from Iraq, these have been going on for a very long time, and 
I was part of the response to that.
  One of the most important things we can do, if we are going to have 
this process argument, is appreciate the men and women, not just of the 
military, but of the intelligence community, of the State Department, 
of everywhere that has worked to bring the intelligence to bring this 
evil man to justice.
  I heard somebody earlier say we should have just captured him. Well, 
think of the risk that would have put to our military. So maybe we 
should at least appreciate the job that they are willing to do. That is 
going to be essential.
  I often hear my friends talk about keeping the military safe, as if 
that is the end state of the military.
  The military's job that they volunteer for every day is to keep the 
American people safe, and that is exactly what was done a week ago in 
the death of Soleimani.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that we can give them an opportunity and pass this 
resolution appreciating the men and women of the intelligence community 
and the military. That is the least we can do after this debate on the 
floor.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I take my duty 
to protect and defend our Nation's interests very seriously. The 
President's reckless and irresponsible actions toward Iran have 
endangered our servicemembers, diplomats, and allies, and they have 
worked counter to American security interests. Those include dangerous 
decisions to pull out of the successful Iran deal and kill Commander 
Soleimani, drastically ratcheting up tensions in the region.
  In the context of the administration's failure to demonstrate an 
imminent threat to our Nation, there is no authority for such an action 
without authorization from Congress. What makes this even more 
dangerous is that the President has no clear strategy.
  Under the Constitution, President Trump does not have the authority 
to unilaterally wage war. That is why, today, I support this rule and 
the underlying resolution, which directs the President to end 
hostilities with Iran and to keep our troops in America safe.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Waltz).
  Mr. WALTZ. Madam Speaker, Qasem Soleimani, as we have discussed, many 
of us have discussed here today, was a

[[Page H87]]

terrorist and a terrorist supporter, and hundreds of American troops 
were killed because of him. Many of them are scarred for life.
  I don't think we can overstate, in this body, how gruesome, how 
advanced, how effective the explosive devices that he poured into his 
militias were. They were deadly. They were manufactured in Iran. They 
were put in place by Iran. They were trained by Iran. They had the 
capability to completely penetrate our armored vehicles.
  Soleimani worked hand in hand, in addition to this, with Assad in 
Syria, a serial human rights abuser, and waged even chemical warfare on 
his own people, literally killing tens of thousands. And because of 
him, today, hundreds, if not thousands, of families, including Gold 
Star families, just this past holiday, couldn't open up presents with 
their loved ones. No longer will they celebrate birthdays or holidays 
because of this one evil man.
  This terrorist, because of his savage actions, I, as a former Green 
Beret who operated against these thugs for years, am grateful to the 
intelligence officer, as my colleague Mr. Kinzinger just mentioned, to 
the members of the military who carried out this mission to prevent 
more lives from being lost.
  Soleimani was actively planning attacks in the coming weeks, in the 
coming days, in the coming months. According to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, these attacks were imminent, they were clear, 
and they were a present danger for our troops, to our allies, and to 
our interests.
  From an oversight perspective, the President had a duty to act; and 
I, for one, would be screaming from the rooftops if he had not taken 
appropriate action.
  So, again, Madam Speaker, I am thankful for his leadership taking 
this monster out. Frankly, this should have been done a long, long time 
ago, years ago, by multiple previous administrations. It astounds me 
that this is up for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. WALTZ. For those of you saying actions have consequences, let me 
remind you that inaction has consequences. Go to Walter Reed or 
Arlington, or go visit the American contractor, as though that is some 
kind of term, the American that was killed just last week. His name was 
Nawres Waleed Hamid. He is from Sacramento. He is from California, and 
he was just buried.
  I think the answer for most Americans is this was warranted. It 
certainly was for me.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and 
consider this resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the War Powers Resolution simply requires 
the President to consult with the Congress and with the American public 
before going to war with Iran.
  Our constituents held their breath on Tuesday. Thankfully, no lives 
were lost in Iran's retaliatory attack, but serious concerns remain 
about the rationale and the ramifications.
  We do not mourn the loss of Qasem Soleimani. He was responsible for 
actions that harmed and killed American personnel and allies, and I 
condemn that. But any U.S. military action, especially one that could 
spark catastrophic consequences, needs to be carefully considered, 
fully justified within the law.
  President Trump failed to consult the Congress, failed to secure 
specific authorization, failed to cite with specificity the imminent 
threat. In a classified briefing for Members of Congress, the 
administration would not, could not provide any specifics about what 
constituted an imminent threat. They couldn't tell us what the targets 
were, nor would they divulge any of the timelines for the attack.
  It is unprecedented the level at which this administration is seeking 
to obscure the facts from the Congress and the American people. The 
rationale is in doubt, the ramifications as well: The U.S. announced it 
will suspend our fight against ISIS; Iraq's Prime Minister and the 
legislature moved to expel our troops; the Iranian leaders announced 
they would no longer abide by the 2015 nuclear deal.
  President Trump's actions have dramatically increased the possibility 
of war with Iran and Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Today, America 
and our allies are less safe as a result of the administration's 
actions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let us reassert the Congress' role to ensure that the 
President--any President--is complying with the law and is not 
conducting lengthy military actions without congressional approval.
  Let us prevent another unnecessary war. Let us vote for this rule and 
this resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the Constitution gave Congress the power 
to declare war. The Constitution gave Congress the power appropriate 
money for war. The Constitution gave us the power to raise and support 
armies and to provide and maintain a Navy.
  Why? Why didn't the Framers just give the President the power to 
declare and wage war? After all, the President is made Commander in 
Chief of the Army and Navy and militias when called into the actual 
service of the United States. It would have been a lot simpler to say 
let the President go to war whenever he wants. Why didn't they do that?
  Well, the Framers acted against a background of kings and princes 
plunging their populations into wars of vanity and political advantage 
to distract their people at home from the political problems of the 
kingdom, of the monarchy. And our Framers were emphatic that the 
awesome power of war, the power over life and death of our sons and 
daughters, the power over our national treasure not be vested in one 
man alone but, rather, in American democracy itself.
  The representatives of the people, the people of Maryland and 
Virginia and Florida and California and Idaho and Pennsylvania and 
Michigan and Alaska and Hawaii, that is who the Framers vested the 
power of war in: the Congress of the United States.
  Now, the structural problem is that, if the Nation is actually 
attacked or there is an imminent attack coming, the President may need 
to respond in self-defense. Madison anticipated that, and Madison said 
that might happen.
  The Supreme Court, in 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, in the 
Prize Cases, said that the President can act in those situations. 
Lincoln embargoed and blockaded the Southern States, and that was 
attacked as unconstitutional. They said, well, he was acting against a 
real, imminent threat to the land and the people of the country.
  Now, after the Vietnam war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution 
in 1973, providing the President may engage our forces in hostilities 
only with a declaration of war, a statutory authorization, or a 
national emergency created by an attack upon our people or our Armed 
Forces.
  Now, under the War Powers Act, the President must consult Congress if 
he thinks that he is acting in imminent self-defense of the country. 
The President didn't do that. He talked to some other people at Mar-a-
Lago. He never talked to the Congress of the United States officially, 
neither the Republicans nor the Democrats. He didn't contact the so-
called Gang of Eight of our top leadership in the intelligence and 
security field.
  He did notify us, in fairness to the President, within 48 hours of 
his targeted killing, which many see, under international law, as an 
act of war.
  At this point, though, whether you think there was truly an imminent 
crisis and this was something like Pearl Harbor or you think that the 
President still has not given us a single compelling justification for 
why he did it in

[[Page H88]]

acting under imminent self-defense, you think it is more like Gulf of 
Tonkin, it doesn't make any difference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RASKIN. All of us, everybody in this Chamber at this point should 
say that whatever imminent threat existed, whatever emergency there was 
is gone, and now this country should not go to war without a 
declaration of war by this Congress or statutory authorization, unless 
we are attacked in the meantime.
  That is the whole point of the War Powers Resolution, to enforce the 
powers of Congress. We represent the people. We should not be going to 
war in the name of the United States based on the word of one man. That 
is not the constitutional design. It must be the Congress itself.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a January 3 CNN 
article, entitled, ``Trump's Huge Iran Gamble Will Have Lasting 
Impact.''

                        [From CNN, Jan. 3, 2020]

           Trump's Huge Iran Gamble Will Have Lasting Impact

                         (By Stephen Collinson)

       (CNN) President Donald Trump's targeted killing of Iran's 
     ruthless military and intelligence chief adds up to his most 
     dangerous gamble yet with other peoples' lives and his own 
     political fate.
       By killing Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, Trump committed the 
     United States to a risky open conflict that at best could 
     stop short of all-out war with Iran that could cause national 
     security and economic shocks in the United States and across 
     the globe.
       The administration argues that it has taken one of the 
     world's worst mass murderers and terrorists off the 
     battlefield. But given Iran's easy access to soft targets, 
     the Middle East and even Europe suddenly look a lot less safe 
     for Americans, including US troops Trump may be even more 
     tempted to haul home.
       Two days into his re-election year, Trump--who rails 
     against Middle Eastern entanglements--has plunged the United 
     States into another one, with vast and unknown consequences. 
     It challenges a presidency that is already alienating half of 
     his country, following his impeachment and unrestrained 
     behavior in office. Trump may find it impossible to rally the 
     nation behind him to weather the crisis. He has also 
     scrambled strategic and moral expectations of the United 
     States--ordering the killing of a senior foreign leader of a 
     nation with whom the US is not formally at war--albeit an 
     official regarded by Washington as a terrorist.
       Reflecting the strike's potential for escalation, a US 
     defense official said the administration would deploy a 
     further 3,000 troops to the Middle East, including 750 who 
     have already deployed to protect the US embassy in Baghdad.
       The reverberations of his act on Thursday will last for 
     years.
       ``Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!'' 
     Trump wrote on Friday morning in a tweet that will do nothing 
     to calm critics who worry about the depth of his strategic 
     thinking.
       It is too early to know whether Soleimani's death will 
     significantly weaken Iran and improve the US strategic 
     position, whether it will ignite a regional conflagration and 
     how it will eventually affect Trump's political prospects and 
     legacy. It is also unclear how it will change the political 
     position inside Iran where the regime is besieged by an 
     economic crisis and recently crushed mass protests.
       But Iran will surely regard the killing of one of its most 
     significant political leaders as an act of war, so its 
     revenge is likely to be serious and long lasting.
       ``There are definitely going to be unintended consequences, 
     and for starters I think we better have our embassies pretty 
     well buttoned down,'' former US Ambassador to Iraq 
     Christopher Hill told CNN.
       ``Iran simply cannot sit on its hands on this one. I think 
     there will be a reaction and I'm afraid it could get bloody 
     in places.''
       Trump supporters are celebrating their hard man commander-
     in-chief. They note that Soleimani orchestrated the deaths of 
     hundreds of US soldiers in militia attacks during the Iraq 
     War. But recent history is marked by spectacular US shock-
     and-awe opening acts of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 
     that cause short-term gloating and long term military and 
     political disasters. A full-on conflict with Iran would be 
     far more complicated than those two wars.
       Trump's strike may be the most significant calculated US 
     act in a 40-year Cold War with revolutionary Iran. It's the 
     biggest US foreign policy bet since the invasion of Iraq.
       Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN's ``New Day'' that 
     killing Soleimani ``saved American lives'' and was based on 
     ``imminent'' threat intelligence about an attack in the 
     region. Trump echoed his secretary of state later Friday 
     morning, tweeting that Soleimani ``was plotting to kill many 
     more'' Americans.
       But Pompeo refused to give further details. The political 
     bar for an administration that has made a habit of 
     disinformation and lying is going to be far higher than that 
     in such a grave crisis. Eliminating the most powerful 
     political force in Iran short of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali 
     Khamenei also destroys the chimera that this White House is 
     not committed to a regime change strategy.
       Given Soleimani's frequent travels to Iraq, Syria and other 
     areas in the Middle East this is not the first time that he 
     will have been in US crosshairs. But previous presidents, 
     perhaps cognizant of the inflammatory consequences, chose not 
     to take the shot. In the coming days, the administration will 
     have to explain why it acted now.
       The act also likely eliminates possibly for a generation, 
     any hope that the United States and Iran can settle their 
     differences by talking. There will be no desire nor political 
     capital for even Iranian officials often misleadingly 
     described as moderates to sit down with US counterparts.
       When Trump took office, there was no immediate crisis with 
     Iran. The Islamic Republic was honoring the Obama 
     administration's nuclear deal though it had not stepped back 
     from its missile development and what the US says is 
     malignant activity in its own neighborhood.
       But by ripping up the deal, strangling the Iranian economy 
     and now killing Soleimani, Trump now owns however the 
     confrontation turns out. It's a huge gamble because history 
     suggests that Presidents who bet their careers on the jungle 
     of Middle East politics always lose.
       The strike displays Trump's growing infatuation with 
     wielding military power, exacerbates a trend of unchecked 
     presidential authority and forges the kind of ruthless 
     vigilante image he adores.
       The question is now whether Trump--an erratic, 
     inexperienced leader who abhors advice and rarely thinks more 
     than one step ahead--is equipped to handle such a perilous, 
     enduring crisis.
       And is his administration, which seems bent on toppling 
     Iran's regime but cannot publicly come up with a plan for the 
     aftermath, ready to handle an Iranian backlash in the region 
     and beyond?
       Trump's hubristic tweeting of a US flag following 
     Soleimani's death in a drone strike in Iraq but failure to 
     explain to Americans what is going on may be a bad sign in 
     this regard.
       But despite a stream of instant Twitter analysis from 
     pundits suddenly expert in Iranian affairs, no one can be 
     sure what will happen next. That's what makes Trump's strike 
     so unpredictable and potentially dicey.
       With the vast network of proxies from Hezbollah to Hamas, 
     Iran has the capacity to strike fast and hard against US 
     allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and US assets and 
     personnel in its region. It could hammer the global economy 
     by attacking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. US 
     officials and top military officers may be more exposed when 
     they travel abroad. Iran could explode Lebanon's fragile 
     political compact and causes region-wide shocks.
       US troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan look especially 
     vulnerable to action by Iranian-allied forces. Politically, 
     the Baghdad government may have no choice but to ask American 
     forces to leave after the attack in a scenario that could 
     effectively deliver the country to Iran's influence or 
     retrigger its terrible civil war.
       The killing of Soleimani is a massive symbolic blow to 
     Iran. He was the Godfather of the Middle East who 
     masterminded the country's huge regional influence.
       Pompeo claimed that his demise will be greeted by Iraqis 
     and Iranians as a blow for freedom and a sign the United 
     States is on their side. But developments in Middle Eastern 
     politics rarely mirror the optimistic pronouncements of US 
     officials.


          Did the US inflict a serious strategic blow on Iran?

       Analysts will be looking to see whether the death of 
     Soleimani robs the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary 
     Guards Corps of its coherence and dims its regional power at 
     least at first.
       Tehran's strategic response is unclear. While it could lash 
     out, a wave of attacks against US soldiers or terrorist 
     strikes elsewhere may draw it into a direct conflict with a 
     more powerful rival, the United States that it does not seek.
       It is not certain that it will strike back quickly. It may 
     have more to gain from making life intolerable for the United 
     States and its citizens in the region in a slow burn 
     approach.
       Trump could be especially exposed to a such a military or 
     economic backlash by Iran that casts doubt on his judgment 
     given his quickening reelection race.
       His move against Iran could also reshape the dynamics of 
     the presidential election race at home, by opening a lane for 
     Democrats to run as anti-war candidates against him--a 
     position that helped the last two presidents--Trump and 
     Barack Obama--get elected.
       Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders on Friday released a 
     video vowing to do everything he can ``to prevent a war with 
     Iran.''
       ``Because if you think the war in Iraq was a disaster, my 
     guess is that the war in Iran would be even worse,'' the 
     Vermont senator said.
       And Democratic front-runner Joe Biden immediately swung 
     into sober commander-in-chief mode, positioning himself to 
     profit politically if Trump's Iran venture backfires.

[[Page H89]]

       The former vice president offered testimony to Soleimani's 
     record of fomenting bloodshed and instability but added: 
     ``President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a 
     tinderbox.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 83.
  Our single greatest responsibility is the safety and security of the 
American people; and as the elected representatives of the American 
people, it is our solemn duty to ensure that our country only engages 
in armed conflict that is necessary and that, when we do, there are 
clear objectives and a strategy for achieving those objectives.
  The Trump administration has presented neither evidence that military 
action is necessary nor a clear outline of their goals and a strategy 
with respect to Iran.
  Any decision to put American troops in harm's way should be debated 
openly and honestly so that the American people have a say in their 
future. Nothing in this resolution prevents the administration from 
seeking authorization for future actions, but it does guarantee, as the 
Constitution requires, that the American people, through their elected 
representatives, have a voice in that decision.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I was in the class of Congress that was elected right 
after September 11, 2001, that came into office in 2003.
  After coming to office, through press reports and information in 
various congressional hearings, we got information that Osama bin Laden 
had declared war on the United States in 1997--I did not know that--and 
that there had been actionable intelligence and Osama bin Laden could 
have been taken out prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but the 
administration in the 1990s decided not to do so.
  Now, yesterday, fast-forwarding to present time, we heard from 
General Mark Milley clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a 
significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, 
weeks, and months that the administration would have been culpably 
negligent if it did not act, all in regards to the killing of General 
Soleimani.

                              {time}  1345

  The President wants to keep the country safe. The President showed 
remarkable restraint, I thought, yesterday, and I thought the tone in 
his address to the Nation yesterday was precisely the right tone.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H. Con. Res. 83--Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(c) of 
 the War Powers Resolution to Terminate the Use of United States Armed 
Forces to Engage in Hostilities in or Against Iran--Rep. Slotkin, D-MI, 
                           and 134 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes passage of H. Con. Res. 
     83, which purports to direct the President to terminate the 
     use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in 
     or against Iran or any part of its government or military 
     unless authorized by Congress.
       At the President's direction, on January 2, the United 
     States military successfully executed a strike in Iraq that 
     killed Qassem Soleimani, the Commander of the Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, a designated foreign 
     terrorist organization. Soleimani was personally responsible 
     for terrible atrocities. He trained terrorist armies, 
     including Hezbollah, launching terror strikes against 
     civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the 
     region. He directed and facilitated actions that viciously 
     wounded and murdered thousands of United States troops, 
     including by planting bombs that maim and dismember their 
     victims. In eliminating Soleimani from the battlefield, the 
     President took action to stop a war, not to start a war. He 
     took action to protect our diplomats, our service members, 
     our allies, and all Americans.
       Although concurrent resolutions like H. Con. Res. 83 lack 
     the force of law under controlling Supreme Court precedent, 
     I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), it is nevertheless 
     important to highlight some of its deficiencies.
       First, H. Con. Res. 83 is unnecessary because the military 
     actions to which it applies are already authorized by law, 
     including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
     Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) (``2002 AUMF''). 
     The 2002 AUMF provides specific statutory authorization to 
     engage in military action to ``defend the national security 
     of the United States against the continuing threat posed by 
     Iraq.'' Public Law 107-243, Sec. 3(a)(1). The United States 
     forces that have been threatened by Iranian and Iran-backed 
     attacks in Iraq are there to combat terrorist groups--such as 
     ISIS. Thus, in addition to acting in accordance with his 
     Constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and Chief 
     Executive, the President also acted against Soleimani 
     pursuant to existing statutory authorization. The 2002 AUMF 
     has always been understood to authorize the use of force for, 
     among other purposes, addressing terrorist threats--like 
     Soleimani and the attacks he was planning and facilitating--
     emanating from Iraq. This is consistent with actions taken by 
     previous Presidents pursuant to the 2002 AUMF. For example, 
     during the last administration, United States forces 
     frequently conducted operations in response to attacks and 
     threats by Iran-backed militias in Iraq under the authority 
     conferred by the 2002 AUMF. Moreover, the Administration's 
     engagement with Congress on this strike has been fully in 
     accordance with past precedent, including by providing 
     notification consistent with the War Powers Resolution and by 
     briefing Congressional leadership, the full membership of the 
     House and Senate, and appropriate staff.
       Second, were provisions like those included in H. Con. Res. 
     83 to become law, they could undermine the President's 
     ability to defend United States forces and interests in the 
     region against ongoing threats from Iran and its proxies. 
     Iran has a long history of attacking United States and 
     coalition forces both directly and through its proxies, 
     including, most recently, by means of a January 7 missile 
     attack from Iran against United States forces stationed at 
     two bases in Iraq. Over the last several months, Soleimani 
     planned and supported these escalating attacks by Iranian-
     directed Shia militia groups on coalition bases throughout 
     Iraq. He orchestrated the December 27, 2019 attack on an 
     Iraqi military base, which resulted in the death of a United 
     States citizen and badly wounded four United States service 
     members. Soleimani also approved the subsequent attack later 
     that month on the United States Embassy in Baghdad, which 
     turned violent and damaged the Embassy facility. At the time 
     of the January 2 strike, Soleimani was in Iraq in violation 
     of a United Nations Security Council travel ban and was 
     actively developing plans to imminently attack United States 
     diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the 
     region. Subsequently, Iran launched an attack against the 
     United States. Were Congress to attempt to compel the 
     President to adhere to a resolution like H. Con. Res. 83, it 
     could hinder the President's ability to protect United States 
     forces and interests in the region from the continued threat 
     posed by Iran and its proxies.
       This concurrent resolution is misguided, and its adoption 
     by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States 
     to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to 
     harm.

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, ``no'' vote on the rule, the underlying measure, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I think what the President did was a grave 
miscalculation, but we can't change the past. We can only shape the 
future.
  I have raised concerns about executive overreach during the Bush 
administration; I raised them during the Obama administration; and 
today, I am here to raise those concerns about the Trump 
administration.
  I hope there is no war with Iran, but we have seen that developments 
can change day by day, hour by hour. Should tensions escalate again, 
Congress should have a say before hostilities are launched. It is 
really that simple.
  This should be the easiest vote in the world for Members of Congress. 
Regardless of what you think about what the President has done, 
regardless whether you agree with his policies or not, and regardless 
of your political affiliation, this is about ensuring that we have a 
say about what may come next.
  There is nothing radical about this. The Constitution gives only 
Congress the ability to declare war. Let's reclaim our power and let's 
do our jobs.
  My friends say they want to honor our troops. Well, talk is cheap. 
How about honoring our troops by doing our job, by living up to our 
constitutional responsibilities. War is a big deal. We ought to take it 
seriously here. I and some of my Republican friends over the years have 
raised issues with Democratic and Republican administrations about the 
ease in which they commit our troops to hostilities. Enough is enough.

[[Page H90]]

  No more endless wars. Congress has to live up to its constitutional 
responsibility. Let's reclaim our power. Let's do our job.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House 
Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member 
serving in this body on September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful 
and tragic war in Iraq, and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong 
support of the rule governing debate of H. Con. Res. 83, a concurrent 
resolution directing the President to terminate the engagement of 
United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against Iran, as well 
as the underlying legislation.
  I thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, 
for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair 
Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution.
  I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the 
House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the 
American people safe by limiting the President from taking further 
precipitous military actions regarding Iran.
  We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that 
while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is 
the nation that goes to war.
  And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and 
take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but 
through Article I, Section, clause 11 in the collective judgment of 
Congress, the representatives of the American people.
  It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to 
self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the 
right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad.
  But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must 
inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a 
certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the 
window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future 
disastrous attacks against the United States.
  Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a 
position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action.
  Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L. 
93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged 
in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its 
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific 
statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President 
if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.''
  The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020 by the 
President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's 
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major 
architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important 
question of why the action was taken at that time.
  Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or 
been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action 
was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the 
United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel.
  The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns 
of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the 
killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the 
product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after 
extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding 
the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and 
our nation and its people.
  Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the 
hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation 
and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether 
there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does 
not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the 
United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East 
placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons.
  Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the 
Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al 
Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian 
civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw 
the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently 
demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country.
  Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been 
suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to 
assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and 
bore responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by 
Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq.

  Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran, 
the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the 
Middle East.
  But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a 
high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to 
the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
  In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of 
Iran.
  It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by 
American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at 
risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in 
the region and across the globe.
  It must be remembered, Madam Speaker, the United States has national 
interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries 
in the region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic 
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a 
nuclear weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, 
and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to 
government corruption and violations of basic human rights.
  For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in 
place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for 
managing disputes with Iran.
  That does not appear to be the case.
  There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress 
or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our 
allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a 
working and well-functioning national security council apparatus.
  This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle 
East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the 
Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.''
  Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh 
retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the 
action taken by the Administration.
  It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to 
counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure 
to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to 
protect the security of the homeland.
  The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has 
the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political 
leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke 
Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir 
presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914.
  One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but 
so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The 
Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes 
result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are 
overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill-
founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political 
backlash warfare.
  Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into 
harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in 
the Congress and the President.
  Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the 
decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and 
otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in 
secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national 
security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide 
requested information.
  The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when 
to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between 
the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American 
people.
  The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003 
and continuing to this day has taught this nation the importance of 
having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use 
military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting 
precipitously or unwisely.
  We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake.
  That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the 
concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to 
terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage 
in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or 
military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific 
statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of 
the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an 
imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or 
possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of 
the War Powers Resolution.
  Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of 
the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United 
States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be 
employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and

[[Page H91]]

safety in America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be 
placed at risk.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 781

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 783) honoring the members of the military 
     and intelligence community who carried out the mission that 
     killed Qasem Soleimani, and for other purposes. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 
     to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 
     of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 783.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--227

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

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Buchanan
     Crawford
     Diaz-Balart
     Fitzpatrick
     Hunter
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Lewis
     Loudermilk
     McEachin
     Serrano
     Simpson

                              {time}  1413

  Mrs. HARTZLER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DelBene). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore

[[Page H92]]


     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Buchanan
     Crawford
     Fitzpatrick
     Hunter
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Lewis
     Loudermilk
     McEachin
     Serrano
     Simpson

                              {time}  1422

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________