 I'll be returning to Washington on the next plane and we will be facing a reconvening of Congress in the aftermath of the president's decision to strike General Soleimani. The question before us is not whether that was a legitimate decision. The question is whether it was a wise decision. General Soleimani has been responsible for the death of many American soldiers. Iran has been a bad actor in the region. But the fundamental question for the president is always will a decision that he makes enhance or diminish our national security? Will that decision make us safer or less safe? Secretary Pompeo is insisting that a result of this attack will make Americans safer. That's preposterous. There's no evidence whatsoever to indicate that. Let me just go through a few things that have happened since the president's action. Number one, the Iraqi parliament has voted that all troops in Iraq be expelled precipitously without any planning and immediately. Second, the Iraqi citizenry that had been on the street protesting Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs has dissolved and Iraqis are united in their anger at the U.S. as a result of us having an attack on their soil. Number three, the Iranians who were on the street and protesting the policies of their own government are now united in their opposition to the United States. Number four, virtually all commentators say that as a result of this action, it all but makes certain that Iranians who said themselves that they intend to do this will attack our diplomats, our generals. They want to retaliate in what they say is a proportionate way to respond to this. The irony to is that President Trump who has said that he wants to bring her troops home from the endless wars in the Middle East and incidentally I support him in that effort. The opposite has happened. Instead of bringing troops home, he's just deployed from Fort Bragg another 3500 troops to go to the region. Also, all our embassies are now on alert and we're bringing American personnel home. So the notion that Secretary Pompeo is trying to promote that this action has made a safer is absurd. And it's belied by the fact that the president is ordering troops to the region, ordering a stand down in our embassies, putting embassies on high alert, doing enhanced interrogation of Iranian citizens coming through our border crossings. So this was a decision that has had the absolute opposite of what the president states was his goal, deterrence and safety, its escalation and insecurity. Now, when I return to Washington, I want to do a couple of things. First of all, when I get off the plane, I'll be taking the metro to the capital. And I'm going immediately to the secure briefing room at the intelligence committee to read the raw intelligence. I want to get to the bottom of this. Let me be frank. I don't believe what the president has said about the planning. And in fact, the Iraqi prime minister has said that Soleimani was there for discussions. But I want to look at the raw intelligence and I'll have an opportunity to do that. Immediately upon my return to Washington, I'll be going to the Intel committee to review those documents this afternoon. Second, I want to have hearings on this decision and get to the bottom of this decision. Any decision of this consequence is something that should be fully vetted by the National Security Council because the consequences are inevitable. And it is absolutely essential for the well being of our country that a president in making this decision have the benefit of a full vetting process. What's likely to happen down the line as a result of this decision. The president wasn't even in Washington. He wasn't in the situation room. He wasn't dealing with the National Security Council staff who could raise the proper questions. He was table hopping down at Mar-a-Largo when he made this decision. I want to have public hearings to get to the bottom of this, including as much revelation of this so-called intelligence that the president claims was the basis of his decision. Third, I'll be supporting war powers resolutions as I have in the past to limit the authority of the president to use military force in Iran in effect to go to war with Iran without coming to Congress for a vote, a debate on this question. I'll be sponsoring or supporting legislation to limit or prohibit funding for attacks on Iran. I've been a founding member. I am a founding member of the No War in Iraq caucus. The last thing we need after Iraq, after Afghanistan is another war in the Middle East. And again, I'm astonished at this because I was in agreement with the president's stated goals of bringing our troops home. That made sense to me. It was overdue. And yet the president has taken an action that totally gets in the way of accomplishing that goal. It makes the likelihood of our being able to do that in a timely way. Much, much more difficult. Finally, I will be a voice for deescalation. We do not need another war. And we need deescalation. And any of us in Congress who can do everything possible to try to send a message that we don't want a war, it's not in our interest. I will be a voice for deescalation. My hope, too, is that the Iran nuclear deal, which the president tore up saying that the 15 years of a guarantee of no nuclear weapons in Iran was not enough time. Iran, after five years as a result of this action is said they're getting out of it. So what the president did on the nuclear deal is claim 15 years is too little. And it's ended after five as a result of his action. Very dangerous. There'll be many of us encouraging our European allies to approach Iran to see if there's any way to deescalate and maintain the provisions of that agreement. The last thing we need, the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran. So those are the things that I'll be doing when I return to Washington. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. I assume the published reports are true that you had no notice whatsoever about this, you and your colleagues' comments? That's correct. And what do you make of that? Do you, I mean, would you like to have been notified of this? There's two issues here. One is the decision to go to war or to take a very significant military action that escalates the prospects of a full-on war are immensely consequential. And it is the responsibility of Congress to make the yes or no decision on putting our troops in harm's way. The president has no regard for the role of Congress in general, and in this case specifically with respect to the likely outcome of his decision. So it is absolutely important that any president respect the War Powers Act and also respect the process of notifying the so-called gang of eight, when there's going to be a significant military action. So I'm very disappointed. But what I'm really concerned about more than that process being abrogated is the decision itself. Again, Soleimani is a bad guy. He's killed American soldiers. America has to deal with a lot of bad people. This bad person Soleimani at times was working in coordination with our allies in Iraq and with the United States and going after ISIS. So this is not a question of whether Soleimani was a bad guy. This is a question of whether the president's decision was a wise decision in our long-term national interest. And it wasn't. It clearly wasn't. And all the consequences that we're having to deal with, how much more destabilization there is in the region is all directly related to this decision. And it's completely contrary, completely contrary to what the president has stated is his goal. I mean, we are sending troops back to the region instead of taking them home. And on the day, two days ago, the Iraqi government voted to expel all American troops. And then the Pentagon sent a letter saying they were going to comply. And then they shortly after that said, whoops, that was just a mistake. It's an indication further that amateur hour is in charge at the White House. I think immediately after this happened, I think it was the third of January, you know, the internet kind of exploded with kind of fearful jokes of World War Three. I mean, are you afraid of any retaliation? And what could happen next? Well, of course, I'm fearful of retaliation. The Iranians have said they will. And also keep in mind, the Iranian regime is not a good, it's a bad regime. And the thing they care about more than anything else, more than their people, they crushed dissent there just recently. The thing they care about and will fight to preserve is their hold on power. And their street, every day, Iranian citizens are demanding revenge. And not that the Iranian mullahs needed this, but they've got enormous pressure from their population, from their citizens to retaliate. So everyone expects that there will be retaliation. I hope there won't. I hope cooler heads will prevail. And it will take some signals from the President himself that he's committed to de-escalation. But when you see all of our embassies are on alert, when we see that we're sending troops to the region, not bringing them home. When you see the heightened security unjustified in my view about Iranian citizens or US citizens of Iranian dissent getting grilled at our border areas, it's an indication that our government itself is going on a much higher state of alert in anticipation of retaliatory action. And the security, of course, at the White House has been enhanced. Do you have any expectation that the President would abide by our respect to any action in our states with regard to the war powers? Not by his conduct as President so far. This is a separate issue, but it's quite important. Since 9-11, there's been an immense buildup in the military and an immense concentration of authority in the President. And we've gotten away from the co-equal branch having to have a debate where each one of us has to vote on this enormously consequential decision as to whether or not those citizens among us who are willing to serve in the military get the benefit of a wise decision rather than a foolish decision. And the President is intensifying this with this action. And again, what's mystifying, but it goes to the impulsive nature of his decision making, is the President has stated repeated that he wants us to bring the troops home. He doesn't want to be in endless wars in the Middle East. That we're oil independent. We don't even have that reason anymore. Yet this impulsive decision is totally thwarting him achieving his own objectives. And the irony, too, is that people like me would support him in those efforts. Some of us, knowing for a long time, you do have a different tone today. You are serious about this. You have a different phase. You have a different tone. You know, I've been to Iraq a number of times in Afghanistan, and I've been to Walter Reed. And I've seen the extraordinary bravery of our soldiers. You know, we lost 5,000 lives in Iraq. We have 20,000 soldiers who suffered crippling injuries. They're suffering. Their families are suffering. There's real consequences to foreign policy decisions. And the most inspiring experience most of us have had in Congress is meeting some of these young men and women who, without complaint, without fear, show up for duty when the president says it's time and they'll go into Iraq. That decision, their patriotism, deserves that the members of Congress and the president treat these decisions about going to war with enormous gravity because the people who are paying the price are the soldiers, not the president, not the members of Congress. Our duty is to be as focused and so reminded as possible before we ask any of our fellow citizens to put that uniform on and risk their lives. And this decision that the president made is such a step towards escalation. And when escalation happens, there's no ability to control where that ends. So yes, I'm very serious about this, because of the consequences that can happen to our men and women in uniform and to our country. Congressman, in your opinion, you're on the Intelligence Committee, what was the proper response and how to recurve the influence of Iran and Iraq? Well, two things. There is an enormous amount of discontent in Iraq about Iranian influence. And in fact, Iraqis had burned a council. They burned it down. That's how intense the protest was. Why would we get in the way of that? You know, at a certain point, what we know is Iraq has to make a decision whether it wants to have a civil war or create a civil society. So this decision of escalation thwarted that. We should be doing everything we can, obviously, to promote a strong and stable government that meets the needs of its citizens in Iraq. And we should be tough with Iran. But those are day by day decisions where you have to take into account what the consequences are and how does it advance or diminish our long-term interest. And our long-term interest clearly is stability. You said you don't believe the President of the Stephen King intelligence or something. Are you more precise about what you don't believe there? Are you referring to or are you saying you don't believe there was anything like that in fact? What it looks like to me is that the President, as he does, was watching TV. He was very upset about the demonstrations around our embassies, understandably. So he wanted to do something decisive according to the press reports. The military gave him a list of options, and they included, according to the press, this attack on Sulamani where, according to the reports, they put that in as an extreme example so the other options would look reasonable. And of course, that was a mistake on the part of the military to suggest this as an option. But it was really the responsibility of the President to make a wise decision. So, I don't believe it, but that's why I want to look at the raw intelligence that I want to get to the bottom of it. On another note, what do you make of the use of John Mock's bulletin testifier on the side? I think it puts the burden on Senator McConnell to do the right thing. Bolton should testify, Mulvaney should testify, Secretary of Defense should testify, Pompeo should testify. And this is very, very important. Before they testify, we should have access to those emails because they'll say one thing and the emails say another. In order to get the real testimony, we have to have the real evidence and that's the emails. So, Bolton saying he's coming forward, I think makes it very, very clear that he's willing to testify, and the only reason he wouldn't is because the President is holding him back or McConnell is holding it back. Do you have any insight from your caucus as to when Speaker Pelosi might transmit these articles to the future? I don't, but I expect it will be sooner rather than later. I mean, keep in mind Congress has been in recess until today, so I think it will happen sooner rather than later. But I do think in this period of recess, the question has been raised and really largely answered that Senator McConnell has no interest in a fair trial. He wants a speeding dismissal. But I think the things like Senator Murkowski saying that she may want witnesses, Senator Collins saying that and Mr. Bolton saying that he would be willing to testify, all of that I think allows the American people to draw a conclusion and suggest, let's have a fair trial. Let's get to the bottom of it. Do you think that agreement to bring witnesses to the caucus has been in place before? You know, that's it. That's kind of a tactical decision. The bottom line here is that at a certain point, we're going to have to trust the Senate to do the right thing. And what's very hard is when Senator McConnell says he's working in close coordination with and effect the defendant with the president, it's very, very difficult to have that confidence. And I mean, the American people are entitled to have a fair trial. And that means one where the senators are impartial jurors. They might be, obviously there's there's politics here, there's partiality. But there's a duty that the institution has to at least try to get the evidence that backs up or refutes the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment that we in the House are sending over. Should we expect further statements from you later today or tomorrow once you review this? Well, I won't be, whatever it is I read in the privacy of the Intel Committee, I won't be able to share. It's one of the reasons I'm pushing for public hearings because I think that you're entitled, the people I represent are entitled to know what I know. And I want them to know it and I'm going to be pushing hard for public hearings. Mr. Kennedy, you're reading the Intel saying you're voting. We're not voting. No, no, there's going to be the speakers putting together the legislation on more powers and also prohibitions on funding for action in Iraq, pardon me, in Iran. You know, I'm supportive of that. And as you know, an original member of the no war in Iraq caucus. My goal is de-escalation here. I mean, I'm extremely upset with the president's decision. I think it's created a significant problem and challenge for our country. Significant danger. But I think the more of us that are on the side of de-escalation, the more prospects we have to stabilize the situation. The previous administration as well as the administration before that both had a chance to take out this guy so why they decided not to, as I understand it, because they thought that the dangers to the country would be greater than the payoff for removing him. Were you in on any explanations from the Obama administration as to why they made that calculation? No. Now keep in mind, Sulaimani's Gambini's been replaced. So whatever the plans were that the president's talking about, they're still in place. And you know, but what is different is we're sending more troops to the region. Our embassies are in heightened state of alert. There's more security at the White House. There's more security at the border. There is the wilderness among our allies and the population in Iraq and the population in Iran that was supportive of what our long-term goals were. Iraqi Street was protesting Iranian involvement in Iraq. We want Iran out of Iraq and the Iranian population that is suffering under the cruel regime was protesting. Now Iran and Iraq, their citizenry, are united and outraged at the United States. And that all happened as a result of this action by the president. That was the outcome. Now had the president had a reflective process to make a consequential decision, it's absolutely certain that all of these likely scenarios would have been discussed and considered. And in the cool of the moment when you start going beyond the impulsive desire to show how tough we are, you start realizing, well wait a minute, this is not necessarily going to help us. It's going to hurt us. You take a half step back. The president has had some restraint in the Middle East. When our drone was shot down, for example, and he completely lost it here in terms of lost restraint here. So thank you.