Good morning, everyone. Happy new year. This is a very serious time here in america, both as it relates to president ial accountability that we continue to address, perhaps most importantly this moment of great tension and conflict in the world, in the middle east, in iraq, with u. S. Troops and americans in harms way unnecessarily in the view of many because of the provocative, potentially unlawful actions of the president of the United States. Mr. Jeffries with respect to the recent strike. At our meeting today we had a very robust discussion as it relates to the moment that we are in, the situation that we confront in the middle east. We were graced by the presence of ambassador wendy sherman, who was one of the lead negotiators of the jcpoa, the iran nuclear agreement. That the president s reckless actions have all but disintegrated making us less safe here in america and throughout the world. We also heard from deputy it relates tos as the underlying legal basis of the president s actions. Cowboy diplomacy did not work in vietnam. Cowboy diplomacy did not work in iraq. Coup diplomacy will not work coup diplomacy will not work in iran. We are hopeful that the administration will deescalate the situation and that the president will move forward in a responsible fashion, working with our partners and allies, particularly as it relates to the european union, to move the world into a better space. Let me yield to our distinguished vice chair of the caucus, the gentlelady from the commonwealth of massachusetts, katherine clark. Ms. Clark thank you, mr. Chairman. As always, thank you for your leadership. Let me start by saying that our thoughts and prayers are with american troops and diplomats in iraq and around the world at this time. Despite what the president has tweeted, all is not well. As the world witnessed last night, the president s actions last week have set off a avalanche of chaos that endangers our service members, diplomats, iraqi people, and americans. We must commit to deescalating this crisis in front of us. To theand the house plans this week to to that end the house plans this week to vote on a war powers resolution to Reconfirm CongressCongress Long established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further congressional action is taken, the administrations military hostilities with iran must cease within 30 days. Our purpose is clear. We stand ready to keep americans safe and secure and to prevent this from escalating into a war with iran. While we face turmoil abroad, we also must remain focused on keeping americans safe at home. And to do that we will this week vote on the pfas action act of 2019. Which will require that the e. P. A. Use tools under several environmental statutes to stem the flow of contamination to the clean up of sites, regulating emission, and prohibiting unsafe incineration. American families deserve and need access to clean water and clean air. And we have this administration erode Environmental Policies and roll back protections. We are not going to stand on the sidelines and let American Families suffer. As members of congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American People safe. Its an obligation that this white house has lost sight of. The military air strike targeting high level Iranian Military officials was reckless and it was dangerous. And we are so glad in this Democratic Caucus to have the level of expertise on National Security that we can call on to help us protect the American People in these dangerous times. So im very pleased to bring to the podium representative torres small. Mrs. Torres small thank you, katherine. In the last six days i have understood the responsibility that congress has to this country and that i have to my constituents in a way i never could have before. We know that general soleimani was a terrorist. We know that he was worse than a terrorist because he had and commanded individuals within a nation state. And because of that gravity, we know that there are severe consequences that must be assessed in the wake of these actions. The responsibility that we have is to require a strategy moving forward. Because the question we face today is whether the United States actions to eliminate general soleimani, puts us at greater threat or could push two countries into a prolonged military conflict. We dont know what the strategy is, and thats why we need to gather the information to determine the answer to that question. What was the intelligence that led to this action . What was the source for that intelligence . How trustworthy was that source . In evaluating whether or not there was an imminent threat to america. What was the evaluations about the potential repercussions or response that iran would have . What was the evaluation of potential responses that others in support of iran would take . With 15,000 more troops now on the ground than we had in the region six months ago, what are we sending our troops away from their families for . These are the questions that we have to have answered. We have more questions right now than we have answers. We dont know the strategy, and we know that revenge is not a strategy. That is why we have to assess what are the consequences that we face in the future . Because with 3,000 troops deployed just in the last few days, with the strikes experienced last night, we know that the consequences are real. And that is why it is necessary for the administration to supply answers to these questions and to coordinate with Congress Moving forward. Our responsibilities are great, and we must bear those esponsibilities. With that i will bring my colleague, andy kim, representative from new jersey, as well to speak on this issue. R. Kim thank you for that a couple things i just want to start with here today. Really just kind of dawned on me overnight the cevaerity of what had happened in severity of what had happened of having our Armed Service men and women, diplomats in harms way. We have to take a step back here and recognize that they came under direct attack from missiles launched from iran. That is a very dangerous place to be. Since the very beginning of this crisis, i have really tried to focus in on those americans that are in harms way right now. We definitely need to get the answers that my colleague just talked about. We definitely need to think through the next steps and the war powers and legality of it all, but it is just so critically important that we do everything we can to be able to make sure that americans in harms way are safe and that we Work Together. If ever there was an area we can Work Together right now, that is a place for it. Beyond where we are at right now and the imminent next steps that might arise, what we do know is that theres been lasting damage to our core priorities in the middle east. The damage that has been done to our fight against isis. The damage that has been done to our relationship with iraq. And we know what is at stake right now in terms of those next steps. Also the damage that has been done in terms of basically taking off the table any chance for a diplomatic solution to reign in Irans Nuclear ambitions. These are the things that are also on my mind and we should be thinking through. It cant just be about this crisis in a vacuum. This is something that is being weighed alongside all the different priorities we have and this administration certainly has a lot to answer for in terms of why they took these decision that is they have and why they were willing to put at risk such core priorities to us Like Fighting isis and keeping americans safe. With that im going to turn it over to my colleague, jason crow. Mr. Crow thank you, andy. Chairman jeffries and vice chair clark for your leadership on this issue. There is no doubt that general soleimani was a bad man. I know that well from personal experience. I know what its like to load wounded american soldiers into the back of trucks in baghdad in the summer of 2003 that were wounded during i. E. D. Attacks. Many of those i. E. D. Attacks orchestrated and trained and equipped by general soleimani and his forces. But i also know that a shoot first and ask questions later approach rarely turns out well. I also know when politicians talk tough in this town, its young men and women, 18, 19, 20yearold women from my community, from their communities that have to pick up rifles, put on uniforms, and go to do the work to back up that tough talk. So the question is not whether general soleimani was a dangerous person. The question facing us here today is whether or not the administration has a plan in place to deal with the consequences of the actions that they took last week. What i see is a series of actions that have jeopardized our standing in iraq. And the presence of u. S. Solders in that region. That have undermined our credibility with our nato allies. And increased the risk to u. S. Soldiers and troops in the region. There is a reason why as we sit here right now there are 7,000 additional troops rushing to reinforce our embassies and our facilities in that region. Our Rapid Reaction forces. Its because the threat has increased. There are missiles raining down on our bases in the last 24 hours. All of this is the consequence of the actions last week. So the question facing us now is, what is the plan and how do we go forward . The time is always right for the u. S. Congress, the representatives of the people, to have a serious discussion with the American People and the administration with about what is right and how do we commit young men and women into harms way around the world . That is why i was proud to join almost 40 of my colleagues this morning to send a letter to President Trump and secretaries esper and pompeo, outlining our concerns and what questions we need to have answered not just today during the classified briefing but Going Forward as we embark on a discussion about what we do to secure this country. Im honored to be joining with my colleagues to have that discussion. We look forward to your questions. Mr. Jeffries we are so thankful of the class of 2018 and all the life experience, patriotic experience that they have brought to bear over the last year to the United States congress, to the people that they are privileged to represent. They lead the caucus National Security task force and its times like this that we lean on their expertise and that the American People will benefit from their expertise. Questions . Asked about impeachment. Do you have any updates on what that looks like . Sounds like the resolution in the senate [indiscernable] mr. Jeffries there was no discussion about that in the caucus meeting. Today the meeting lasted about an hour and 15 minutes. I support the decision of the speaker to hold the articles until we get some clarity as to whether there will be a fair and impartial and comprehensive trial in the senate. Reporter good morning. War powers resolution, two part question, sounds like this might be muddled. Is it prudent at this stage that you are going to go ahead and move forward with that when there is hostilities in the if region . Mr. Jeffries there is an ongoing discussion of the appropriate timing. We hope to move forward with something sooner rather than later. But there is no time frame as i understand it in terms of it absolutely taking place over the next day or two. Reporter you indicate the you indicated this week. Do you know something ms. Clark we certainly hoped coming into this week to move it this week. We are looking at it. We are in the process of drafting what is a technical document. And we will do it as soon as possible. There is no set timeline. But if i can go back for a minute to the impeachment question. Do want to say that we are concerned with the comments of Senate Majority leader mcconnell and consider that his comparisons to the clinton impeachment when it comes to calling witnesses is really an apple and or rangs and oranges comparison. In the clinton impeachment trial those witness has already been compose depoasted. They had testified. And were part of starrs report. Here we have john bolton coming forward saying he would respond to a subpoena. That he would come forward with the information that we need to know. Continuing to block, to coordinate this trial with the white house makes the Senate Leader complicit. Come police knit this obstruction of the complicit in this obstruction of the facts that we need to put forth in the impeachment trial and put forward in front of the American People. Reporter i have often heard folks say now is not the time to discuss the use of force and the commitment of u. S. Soldiers around the region. Mr. Crow i heard that in 2003 as i was carrying a rifle on the streets in baghdad. I heard it in 2004 and 2005 as i was carrying a rifle in the mountains of afghanistan. Here we are 19 years later, thousands of american men and women have died. Tens of thousands have been wounded. We spent over 4 trillion on our various conflicts. Committed over in over 30 countries around the world. The time is always right for the United States congress to have a serious discussion with the American People about when and how we commit men and women into conflict around the world. And its well past time we have that serious discussion. Reporter are you concerned that the house would pass this, concern by some democrats with military backgrounds by yours, moving this resolution now would basically leave troops in theater high and dry because you are essentially cutting off the 2001 and 2002 mr. Crow we will never leave troops in a difficult position. We are committed to making sure our men and women are supported and protected. That is a unanimous belief across partisan lines. We have to have a serious discussion and we have to reassert Congress Constitutional role. It is our duty to make sure we are conducting oversight and we are having that discussion. Jeffries third row. The congress is provided with the constitution authority alone to declare war. Reporter war powers, progressive caucus has advocated two measures come up on the funding restriction if there is would you be coming up together as a package . Is that something mr. Jeffries there are ongoing discussions as it relates to the specifics as to what the resolution could look like. We wont move forward until we have the robust support of every corner of the caucus. We want to act in a responsible fashion on behalf of the safety and security of the American People. Hat is what this is all about. Reporter you said you are tweaking it. Could you give us consensus of time frame. What could change in the war powers resolution . Mr. Jeffries i dont want to get out ahead of the discussions taking place. This is perhaps our most serious and solemn responsibility as it relates to issues of life and death issues of war and peace. And the caucus with great leadership from Speaker Pelosi is committed to getting it right. Reporter assuming that the Senate Passes sorry. Assuming the Senate Passes the war powers resolution, President Trump is almost certain to veto it. Did lawmakers miss an opportunity in the ndaa by not getting some measures contraining the president s powers, specifically object iran, was that a missed opportunity . Wasnt that the time to take up some of these issues . Mr. Jeffries it was not a missed opportunity, but the facts that are before us at the moment are facts that will need well need to respond to triggered by the president s actions that many view as irresponsible. Donald trump may have been anarsonnist that lit a fuse that could plunge the middle east into a catastrophic war. Though hes trying to pretend as if hes the firefighter. Thats a problem. And we need the administration, hopefully later on today, to begin to present to us a forwardlooking vision, first and foremost, to keep americans safe and out of harms way, but to do so as both andy and jason have talked about, in a responsible fashion moving forward. Reporter going back to impeachment. Mcconnell already said he has the votes the resolution is going to look like. What do you deem by waiting . Mr. Jeffries the speaker has consistently indicated its very difficult for her to determine who would be appropriate impeachment managers to present the houses case. In the absence of in the absence of understanding the rules of engagement and what the contours of the trial would look like. Beyond of course chairman schiff and chairman nadler who would be participants to lead the efforts. What we have seen over the last several weeks are the additional disclosure of documents that continue to highlight that the president did abuse his power by targeting an american citizens political gain while withholding intentionally 391 is million in military aid from a vulnerable ukraine. Additional documents subsequent to the speakers decision to hold the articles have come out. Thats a gain in temples information to the American People in terms of information to the American People. We have also seen during that period of time that a critically important potential witness, john bolton, has said he will testify if subpoenaed. John bolton had direct communication with the president about this sordid matter and abuse of power, and we know from testimony from dr. Fiona hill, characterized this whole scheme the rug deal and president s main operative, Rudolph Giuliani as a hand grenade. Reporter without getting out in front of yourself. Can you talk about what the discussion is in the caucus around war powers . As part of that making sure whatever you guys aligns with senator mr. Jeffries let me yield to representative kim and crow talk about what some of the considerations should be for us to proceed. Mr. Kim what we need to be thinking through is whats going to yield actual results here. What can try to move this forward in a way that shows that there is going to be a bipartisan approach as well to the best of our ability. Look, i said this earlier today. This is certainly a big part of it, the war powers is important in temples understanding the contours of what the president is able to do. But what we also know is that there are lots of different avenues in which the president can proceed with different types of kinetic action. That there are no firm limits that are going to be able to completely restrain what he is willing to do. So that is why its so important that we have this process to bring out and understand from the president what the actual strategy that he is guided by is. And thats something that i want all of us to be mindful about. The reason why we are having this debate about the war powers and what this president is authorized to do is to bring out into the open and make him and his administration explain to us what exactly their goals are, what they are trying to achieve, and what the offramps are to ensure we dont have major escalation here Going Forward that could lead to war. That is something that i have yet to hear from the administration. That is something im very concerned about. And i need to hear from him not just about the military efforts that they are engaged in, but what are their diplomatic outreach . What are the intelligence operations that are trying to help us. Understand where our future attacks might occur. We are not out of the clear. We cannot let our guard down. We know that iranian proxies and more traditional outlets for violence are still very much operational and could very well strike. I just want to put this into that broader context of why it is that we are moving forward with this and why we need to have that transparency for the American People to understand what exactly this president is willing to do and how far hes willing to go. Reporter you also mentioned the practical side of things. How much is the discussion about kaines p with tim resolution . Mr. Kim we have something that we can passthrough both chambers. We want something that can move forward. I want to sort of three what it is that we can accomplish on that front, if possible. There are lots of different considerations happening right now. A lot of robust discussion about that. Well see in the coming hours and days where that lands. Mr. Crow the starting point here is we need clarity on what authorizations the administration is currently relying on. There is disagreement within the administration itself. On one hand you have members of the administration saying that they are relying on the imminent threat Lawful Authority for the strike. Then you have mr. Obrien just last week saying hes relying on the 2002 aumf, one of the socalled zombie aumfs. During a couple months ago during Armed ServiceCommittee Hearings you had secretary esper and general millie telling us currently they are not relying on the 2002 aumf for any military operations. There is disagreement within the administration. We need answers and clarity from them now as to what Ongoing Operations are being based on. And then we can start having a discussion about what authorities they need to make sure that our troops are protected. That our number one priority of securing our installations and men and women on the ground is taken care of, and what the path orward is. Reporter do you feel like its so vital and important that should the senate fail [indiscernable] mr. Jeffries that will be a decision made by some combination of chairman schiff, the speaker, and chairman nadler. The information does appear to be critical, but it appears critical in the context of enhancing what we already know based on 17 witnesses who did come forward and testify, including individuals like Lieutenant Colonel vindman, ambassador taylor, dr. Feeona hill, jennifer williams, these are all individuals who were part of the Trump Administration and confirmed factually that there was a stunning abuse of power that the president engaged it as it relates to the ukraine scandal. That question is better directed at chairman schiff and speaker pa lowsy. Speaker pelosi. Reporter question there was an imminent threat for soleimani. You also called him a terrorist and all the casualties he inflicted on u. S. Troops. Whats wrong with taking a terrorist out of the equation like this happened . Mr. Jeffries i yield to my colleagues. That is an ongoing discussion. We need clarity from the administration as to whether this particular provocative action made america safer or not. President george w. Bush and his Administration Made the decision affirmatively not to take out general soleimani. President barack obama and his administration, which of course struck the leader of al qaeda, osama bin laden, also made the decision affirmatively not to take out general soleimani. Israel that has the capacity to trike someone like soleimani led by benjamin netanyahu, consistently made the decision not to take out general soleimani. Presumably all of these disparate individuals made this decision because they concluded it would not make the region, america, israel, or the world safer. So we need answers from the administration. What has changed . Because what appears right now to have changed is that we have more troops in harms way in the middle east, 15,000 more troops, than six months ago. What appears to have changed is that Irans Nuclear ambitions. Ave been reunited, reignited they have indicated they will now not be constrained by the nuclear agreement. What appears to have changed is that the effort to crush isis is in shambles and the presence of american troops in iraq is in doubt. What also has changed is that israel is not safer as a result f these actions they are potentially being threatened by hezbollah and irans proxies in lebanon. So we need answer from this dministration. Mr. Kim just to add on this. When i hear that there is an imminent threat, that is a very particular and precise term. And when we have tried when i worked in afghanistan and there were imminent threats of attacks against americans, the type of work that we would try to do would be to go after the operators, to go after the weapons depot or the truck that was going to deliver the attack. What im left confused by is if here was an imminent threat, certainly taking out soleimani is one part of that, but where is the rest of the equation here . Where was the attack against the warehouse depot or the housing or the weapons or the operators or the targeted cell hezbollah, whatever group was going to carry it out . I dont actually understand if that threat has been neutralized or not. If that, in fact, was the case at all. Im left with a lot of just very concerned feelings right now about that. The fact i have almost a week after this has started till left with this kind of question is on top of it. The second, i just want to say the decision of whether or not to strike a high valued target or terrorist or some other actor is not necessarily one solely based off of are they a dangerous and bad person who has done terrible things. The fundamental question that we would encounter in the situation room is, are americans going to be safer or not based on this decision and this action . That includes both in your term in terms of disrupting immediate threats, but it also has to deal with sort of the broader implications. Are we safer if our counter isis war comes to an end . Are we safer if iran will now press on the gas to be able to achieve Nuclear Weapons . Shiia safer if this gives militia groups greater reason to be able to target our forces and our diplomats in iraq and the region . So it is not simply a question about how bad soleimani was. He was obviously a terrible and dangerous person. I often called him the most dangerous person in the middle east. But it has to be a broader question about are americans safer now . Mr. Crow just to reiterate. We have threats coming from many people, many places all throughout the world. You look at our sanctions list and our specially designated nationals list has thousands of names on t there is a reason why we dont send missiles to try to kill all of those people. Its because we are strong not just because have a because we have a strong and big military. We are smart how we use it and leverage all our toops including economic sanction, diplomacy, and strength of our allies and partners throughout the world to contain those threats. So that is the question. Its not whether or not there are lots of bad people out there who want to do us harm. That is well established. The question is, is whether or not in this particular instance killing general soleimani was in our National Interests and made us safer and fed into a Larger National strategy, a strategy that has not been described or articulated to this congress or the American People yet. Mr. Jeffries last question. Reporter given the urgency of the situation in the middle east, do you need to do war powers before you send impeachment articles . Mr. Jeffries one issue doesnt have to do with the other. They havent been joined in terms of any other discussions we have had. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Isit ncicap. Org] good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us this morning. Thanks for saying good morning back