That’s in part because, a full week after the airstrike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the White House has yet to offer a clear, consistent articulation of what “imminent” attack the US was trying to avoid — and, in fact, top administration officials are offering conflicting justifications, raising key constitutional questions.

While Republicans have largely fallen in line on the question of whether Trump should be allowed to pressure a foreign country — Ukraine — to undermine his political rival, they are exerting a few flashes of independence from the White House when it comes to attacking Iran.

The President has made specific allegations about the necessity of killing Soleimani. His top aides have remained much more oblique, making it seem as if they are trying to cloud the record without contradicting their boss.

Of course, ignoring Congress and fighting over policy and funding with lawmakers has been a constant of Trump’s presidency, even during his first two years, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

Those fights intensified when Democrats took control of the House a year ago, leading to a record-setting government shutdown in early 2019. Then, when Trump blew off questions about his pressure on Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and tried to squash a congressional investigation, House Democrats impeached him for it.

Trump’s decision to kill an Iranian general and tempt war without consulting Congress was of a different order, and created a national security crisis that puts American lives at risk. And Congress, like the public, has been kept in the dark on some of the most important intelligence.

It’s an important question because, if there was no imminent threat of danger to Americans, the killing veers from anti-terror operation to political assassination. The Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, did not envision that sort of power.

The largely symbolic measure seeks to mandate congressional approval for any conflict with Iran, except in cases of an imminent attack against the US.

It is expected to pass the Democratic-held House, but faces tougher prospects in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Neither the US nor Iran have declared plans for further military action.

Iran this week fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing American forces, injuring no-one, after the US last week killed a senior Iranian commander in a Baghdad drone strike.

Thursday’s measure directs the president to “terminate the use of United States Armed Forces” against Iran unless granted congressional authorisation.

It offers an exception when necessary to “defend against an imminent armed attack”.

Even if the measure clears Congress, it would not reach the president’s desk for a potential veto because it is known as a concurrent resolution, which lacks the force of law.

But now McCarthy looks to agree with AOC that members of Congress deserve a pay raise. Without a salary increament, McCarthy says, only millionaires will be able to serve.

The top Republican in the House made the comments this week as lawmakers scrapped the bill over the possible backlash from increasing salaries for themselves and their staffs.

“When you talk this subject about COLA, a cost-of-living increase, it does invoke an emotion, kind of an impulsive emotion,” McCarthy told reporters, according to the Washington Examiner.

“I think it’s one that we should pause and look at. It’s been more than 10 years in the process. The current study says that pay has decreased by 15 percent. I do not want Congress at the end of the day to only be a place that millionaires serve. This should be a body of the people.”

Members of Congress generally make $174,000 per year, with senior leaders earning more, and no cost-of-living adjustments have been made in the past nine years.

Last month, some vulnerable swing-state Democrats, concerned how the proposed $4,500 pay hike would look if it didn’t also have Republican support, had signed onto amendments rejecting a similar measure to increase their pay.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Schiff said that lawmakers are in talks with Mueller’s office about testifying, but that time is “running out” for him as the August recess for Congress looms on the horizon.

“We have been in private discussions with the special counsel’s office,” Schiff said. “I’d hope we reach this decision this week.”

Schiff added: “We’ll reach a final conclusion; either he’s going to come in voluntarily or we’re going to have to subpoena him.”

In a rare press conference last month, Robert Mueller said he had fulfilled his duties as special counsel investigating Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election and had no intention of appearing before Congress.

“I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete,” Mueller said last month. “The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office. And as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.”

“I hope and expect this to be the only time I will speak to you in this matter,” Mueller added. “No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.  There has been discussion about any appearance before Congress,” he said.

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.”

However, House Democrats, have been insistent that Mueller testify, with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., also putting bold threats to subpoena the special counsel if he doesn’t voluntarily appear before Congress. Nadler’s committee members said they are still negotiating with Mueller’s team and that no timeline for an appearance is yet clear.