Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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 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. 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. 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.

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 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. 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. ``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).

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.

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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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. 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. No more endless wars. Congress has to live up to its constitutional responsibility. Let's reclaim our power. Let's do our job.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Jim McGovern

Speeches

Manage analytics