Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of March 3, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration exhausted every single diplomatic effort that they could with Iran, as did previous administrations. Iran would not see reason. Operation Epic Fury is a legal and necessary exercise of Article II authority to address the imminent threat posed by Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about choices. Defending yourself is a choice. It is a choice that not everybody makes. Some people, instead of defending themselves, curl up into a corner and cry and turn their eyes. Some people stand up and step into the fight and make the tough choice of going through the battles that it takes to defend yourself.

I will thank, again, President Trump for defending America from an imminent threat, an imminent threat that no other President has had the guts to stand up to.

What is that imminent threat? What was that imminent threat that President Trump is doing his duty, his constitutional duty, his Article II authority to defend America against?

I will tell you it is something that almost every single Member of Congress has literally agreed upon up until President Trump decided to defend America.

Previously, almost every Member of Congress voted to call Iran the largest state sponsor of terror, and tomorrow we will cast a vote on what was just debated about reaffirming that they are the largest state sponsor of terror.

Nearly all Members unanimously voted to condemn their continuous funding of terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. What does that mean? It means they give them money. They give them weapons. They give them training. They give them direction on where to find and how to kill Americans, and then they reward them for doing that. Almost every Member of Congress has voted unanimously to condemn that.

It was almost a unanimous vote calling their nuclear program a massive threat to the United States of America. My colleague over there voted in the affirmative on that. Almost every one of us voted to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

Those votes didn't just happen for no reason. We have seen Iran as an imminent threat against America, not just for the last 4 days, not just for the last 4 months, or 4 years, but for the last 40 years.

Why do they continue to be an imminent threat? Because they have never faced an imminent response until President Trump. Instead, we told them--when I say ``we,'' I could say America, but really it was my Democrat colleagues that told them this. They told them how much uranium they could enrich instead of they can't do it, period. We told them when they could have a nuclear weapon instead of no. On top of that--again, I say ``we'' because it is America, but it was really my Democrat colleagues--gave them pallets of cash. That is a fact.

I especially, as many of my other colleagues, wouldn't take this away from anybody here. No one wants to see our military go into ``combat,'' ``war,'' ``conduct combat operations,'' ``battle,'' or whatever word somebody wants to use to describe it. I do not want to see conflicts end in casualties.

I wear many names on my wrist of friends that I have lost, but Iran's terror, which has caused the death of thousands of Americans, has to stop. They don't warn us when they are going to kill Americans. They are an imminent threat. They look for a surprise. They look for an opportunity, any weakness, any moment that they can go out there and attack us. They are an imminent threat. There has proven no other way to stop this imminent threat, not by negotiation, not by accord, and not by summit.

Let us talk about this imminent threat. Three U.S. soldiers killed at Tower 22 a year and a half ago: Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett, and Sergeant Rivers. This is an imminent threat. Countless civilian vessels targeted by Iranian drones. That is what an imminent threat looks like.

This one just pisses me off beyond belief. Ten U.S. Navy sailors captured and held on their knees at gunpoint by the Iranian Navy. This is an imminent threat.

The October 7 attack, killing 1,200 civilians, including 46 Americans, was supported by Iran. Again, that is an imminent threat.

This is very personal to me. Iran's killing of an estimated one in six American servicemembers in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. That is an imminent threat.

Beyond that, U.S. fighter jets lost, sunk off one of our carriers in the Red Sea because of Houthi attacks. That is an imminent threat. If you ask an American whether they want war or combat--you can ask me that question. I would say no. I don't want it. I have been in it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want it for my children. We do want the President to stop Iran's imminent threats.

If I asked if anyone wants combat, anybody with sense would say no.

What do people want us to do if there are 10 American Navy men and women put on their knees at gunpoint by Iran? They want us to take care of that. Do they want us to go into combat? No, they do not.

What do people want us to do if there are three American servicemembers killed at Tower 22 by that imminent threat? They want us to take care of that. This is what taking care of that looks like.

President Trump has been clear, consistent, and transparent. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. He made every effort to address this through diplomatic means.

Let me quote directly from a resolution that Democrats, including my colleagues, overwhelmingly supported: ``The House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States . . . to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.''

Leader Jeffries voted on it. Ranking Member Meeks voted on it. Speaker Emerita Pelosi voted on it. Did they not believe it when they voted on it? Did they not read it? Did they not understand ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon''?

We all know Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States. The only difference now is that President Trump is sitting in office.

Right now, our military is shooting down Iranian missiles and drones that are targeting Americans in the region. If Democrats had their way and this

resolution passed, they would force the United States military to pack up, stop shooting down missiles, and tell every American sheltering in place and every ally fighting against this regime that America is no longer there to help.

While this does not fit the narrative of my Democrat colleagues, President Trump had the authority to get the job done under Article II of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

He has been transparent with this Congress. Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and CIA Director Ratcliffe have all conducted now three specific briefs, making our objective clear: destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch Americans or has been used to reach out and touch Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot there. I didn't hear any discussion of Article II authority. I heard a lot of reminiscing, but I didn't hear any reminiscing about Libya either.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I heard one of the craziest things from my colleague just a couple of minutes ago: That if something has been going on for 40 years, it can't be imminent. It can't meet the definition of imminent if it has been going on for 40 years. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

If every day I walk out of my house and get my tail kicked by somebody, that is the exact definition of imminent. It will happen tomorrow and the next day until I finally step up, grow a spine, and prevent it from happening. It is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have three quick points.

Number one, it is Article II of the Constitution that gives the President the authority to defend us against the imminent threat of Iran.

I would say that if the Iran nuclear deal was so masterful, why didn't they bring it before Congress and before the Senate?

The final point that I would make is this: Again, last Congress, 354 Members of Congress, including 150 Democrats and Speaker Emerita Pelosi, who just spoke, all voted ``to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' That was their vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge not supporting this resolution. I am thankful that my colleague at least started to talk about that there is an Article II authority. He actually discussed that.

When is something an emergency?

That is what a real debate can be. I have laid out very clearly a number of reasons why I believe it is a national emergency and why I believe that threat is imminent because of a number of things that have happened. My colleagues over there say that something can't be imminent if it has been going on for years. To me that would be the definition of imminent if it is ongoing for years.

At least my colleague was willing to have that debate, although I disagree with him and urge not passing his legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why not to trust what was just said as the gentleman walks out. Here is what he voted for: ``Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners.'' That is literally what he voted for. ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' To me, that seems pretty damn imminent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), chairman of the Europe Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker just said she was worried about Iran's uranium stockpile and that it could be used at any time. That seems pretty damn imminent to me, too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman about to speak on the other side, Mr. Raskin, also voted to say Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners and to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He must have thought it was pretty damn imminent, too.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard it brought up many times that we get to vote to declare war. We do, but it is enshrined in the Constitution that the President gets to defend the United States of America because of national emergencies.

These kinds of emergencies that the last gentleman voted to say to ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,'' that seems like an emergency to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let's poke a few holes in the Intelligence Committee ranking member's story here.

``At an ebb.'' They have been knocking jets off of our aircraft carriers. They have been attacking in places like Syria and Iraq. They killed three U.S. servicemembers at Tower 22 in Jordan, but he can say that it is at an ebb.

Let's poke one more hole in this. As ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, he did not vote to say that Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners. That seems like an odd thing that the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee wouldn't vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve again, I would just invite the previous speaker to explain. If Iran posed an emergency, an existential threat to America, I would be happy to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the same comments about Venezuela. There has been no forever war there, and that did bring peace and stability to the Venezuelan people. I guess we are proving the previous comments wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the next speaker as well, it would appear, voted to say: ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' He clearly thought that there was a pretty damn imminent threat going on there, but I look forward to hearing the remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think I figured something out. If my colleagues keep saying that 4 days is forever, then maybe that is why they can't talk about what imminent threat means. They can't figure out the definition of these things.

Imminent threat, I have done pretty well to define what makes Iran a imminent threat. They don't want to speak about that. They don't even want to acknowledge it a little bit that, hey, maybe there is even a little chance that Iran could attack us this day. They don't even want to acknowledge it the slightest bit. They want to paint it as though it is just black and white, no shot whatsoever, no threat at all coming from Iran, even though they voted for things to say: Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

It is amazing to me, even though they have difficulty defining other words as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended with: ``This is serious.''

This is serious. It is more serious than when my colleagues can't even acknowledge a hint of an emergency, a hint of imminence related to the threat of Iran--there is nothing to see there--even though last Congress so many of them voted, including Ranking Member Meeks, to say use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Why would they say ``all means necessary''? I guess it is because a year ago they believed it to be that imminent, that important.

It was said by the ranking member, their bill doesn't prevent the U.S. from defending ourselves. It literally does. Let me read the text for you: `` . . . directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war . . . `'

That means the President cannot go out there and defend the United States of America. It is saying the President has no Article II authority to go out there and defend the United States of America. That is literally what they are saying.

He said our hostilities must stop, but I can promise you, the hostilities of Iran will not stop, have never stopped until the United States of America makes this decision to stop them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump for having the courage, the strength, and the resolve to stop the imminent threat of Iran from attacking the United States of America as they have week after week, year after year for the last 47 years. It is the very definition of imminent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in Donald Trump's own words and the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's own words, the United States is at war with Iran.

The question is: Did Congress authorize the war as the Constitution requires?

Did the President present anything before Congress?

Did the Congress have any debate?

Did any administrative authority come before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify?

The answer to that is no.

The question is: Was there any imminent threat requiring the use of force?

The administration has not presented one. In fact, the word ``imminent'' does not appear even once in the administration's own war powers notification. Mr. Speaker, you can't find the word ``imminent.''

Did the Trump administration even bother making the case to the American people or to Congress? Just 8 days ago, during the State of the Union Address, the most visible platform a President has, he could have laid out the rationale for military action, as other Presidents have. Instead, Iran was just a footnote in a record-long speech.

This is a war of choice that was launched by this administration without authorization, without clearly stating objectives or a defined endgame, and without explaining how they intend to keep Americans safe.

The chaos unleashed will not be borne by the President's family. It will be borne by our men and women in uniform who will face retaliation from Iran and its proxy networks. It will be borne by innocent civilians at heightened risk of attacks from Iran's aligned terrorist cells. It will be borne by American families paying more for groceries, for electricity, and for gasoline, all for Donald Trump's war of choice.

Americans woke up on Saturday to the news that the United States is again at war in the Middle East. They don't know for how long because the President has not articulated a clearly defined endgame. Military action without a defined strategy invites escalation, mission creep, and failure. We should have learned this lesson already. Why? We should have learned it already from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

This War Powers Resolution is simple. This is not a vote on Authorization for Use of Military Force. This simply demands that the President of the United States come to Congress, as our Constitution demands, to seek authorization for what he, himself, has described as a war.

Just abide by the Constitution. We all bring our hands up and swear when we are sworn in and say we will abide by the Constitution. You would think that the President of the United States would do just that.

This War Powers Resolution does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not stop the President from responding to an imminent attack. It does not limit us from protecting our troops.

I have served in Congress for 28 years, and I have been in this Chamber as this body has done its most sacred and serious work deliberating whether to send our American servicemembers into harm's way. It is a difficult vote. It is a serious vote. Probably--not probably--without question, the hardest votes that I have ever had to take, but that is my responsibility. I took a pledge to the Constitution that I would follow it.

I was here for the vote after 9/11 to go into Afghanistan, a heavy decision. The President brought information in. We had dialogue. We had conversation. We had debate. We did something else. In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we had hearings. We had administration officials come in.

I wasn't even the ranking member or the chair or anything else. I was just a member of the committee. I could call the administration and say: I need to speak to a Deputy Secretary or the Secretary, and they would come into my office, and we would have this dialogue to determine whether or not we were going to go into this war.

Has that happened now? For over a year, for all the times, not once, not once have we had a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We have asked to have individuals who were negotiating. Unfortunately, some of them are not employed by the State Department, et cetera, like Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff, who all are friends of the President's, basically real estate negotiators who were just half an hour in Geneva, flipping back and forth from two major negotiations. If it was serious, I wouldn't have been in the White House, when the President was supposed to have been honoring individuals after we had lost the lives of six servicemembers, talking about curtains and how I redecorated the White House. This is too serious a decision for me and I would hope for the President of the United States also.

Getting the facts in Iraq, the Secretary of State came before and testified, went before the U.N., talked to the American people. Now, I disagreed because I didn't see the connections after I got the information on Iraq, so I voted no. I agreed on Afghanistan. However, the point here is, the President obeyed the Constitution because he came to Congress first and allowed the Members of Congress to make a determination.

What has happened year after year in my time here, I have watched Congress gradually relinquish its authority on matters of war to the executive branch. We have allowed overly broad Authorizations for the Use of Military Force to remain on the books. We have permitted Presidents of both parties to commit forces without a vote. This war with Iran is the most extreme example of that abdication.

The Framers rejected the idea of a king, meaning one person making a decision without consultation, without giving any reason to this body. It was absolutely rejected. We are not under an authoritarian government, like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin can go to war and he doesn't have to worry about the Duma. They are not a body that has the responsibility that we have in this Congress, so he can go on and fight a war that he has created without worrying about having to talk and being accountable to anyone.

Our Founding Fathers did not want that. They didn't want a king. That is why we were created as a body. It is long past time for us to reclaim and stand up for that authority, for I tell you, even though he may want to think he is, Donald Trump is not a king.

If he believes the war with Iran is in our national interests, then he must come to Congress and make the case.

Show the facts. Show what the intelligence says. Come to Congress and allow us to ask the questions.

We have had three scenarios. The so-called Gang of Eight met once. Then they got another phone call right beforehand. Then the so-called Gang of 20 met once. That is all we have heard from the President.

I oppose this war of choice, but guess what, Mr. Speaker, each Member here must make clear with their own vote where they stand on that decision.

The President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission and without a coherent strategy and without a defined endgame.

Some Members of Congress may decide after they see everything--we may not see it together in the same way, but the evidence and the case comes here and then we take a vote. As was the occasion for me back in 2003, I voted one way, and the majority voted another way. The President had the authority. Another time, I voted the way the majority voted. But each time they came to us. That is what this debate is about and that is what we need to do.

Now, as I see this, the President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission, without a coherent strategy, and without a defined endgame. This open-ended, undefined military engagement is precisely what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain. We are not the Iranian Parliament. We are not a rubberstamp Congress, or at least we shouldn't be a rubberstamp Congress. However, in this scenario, we see that whatever this President wants, my colleagues on the other side will just rubberstamp it.

We should be a coequal branch of government, and our duty is not optional. It was written in the Constitution. The Framers gave Congress this authority because they believed no single person should have the power to take this Nation to war alone.

Today, we either defend the principle or we surrender it. I choose to defend the Constitution and defend the principle and do my job that I put my hand up and swore I would. Hard votes, easy votes, I will take them all because that is what I swore an oath to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all I will say is that if Iran has been an imminent threat for 47 years, the word ``imminent'' then loses all meaning.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader in the United States House of Representatives, from Brooklyn, New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the person who is the greatest Speaker in the history of the United States Congress, the first woman, and the distinguished Speaker Emerita.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the esteemed whip of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), who is the sponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the cosponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), an esteemed member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that this is a Massie bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the President would follow the Constitution.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I never heard Donald Trump say it was an imminent threat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to be clear about what this resolution is not. It is not a vote for or against war with Iran. It is not an authorization for use of military force. It does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not restrict our U.S. military from protecting our troops or our assets or our interests.

Mr. Speaker, you may have heard some of those claims on the other side today. They are wrong.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

What is it?

It is simple. It simply requires hostilities to stop unless and until Congress does what the Constitution says it should do: authorize them. That is what the Constitution says. It affirms a basic principle: No President can take this action or take this Nation to war against whomever whenever that President wishes to do it without congressional authorization.

This is a war. The administration has said so themselves. We have heard many Members on the other side of the aisle say this is a war. This is a war, but it is a war of choice, not a war authorized by the United States Congress.

In the administration's own war powers notification--and if you haven't read it, we will give it to you--they do not use or mention the word ``imminent'' at all, not once. The administration has presented no imminent threat. Why? It is because it cannot.

I want to give my colleagues the definition of the word ``imminent.'' If it was so imminent, Donald Trump didn't do anything when he was the President before.

How long will this war last? We don't know. The administration doesn't seem to know. Their stated objectives are expansive and shifting every day. They seem to shift. One day I heard them say it was regime change. The next day I heard them say it is nuclear weapons. Then after that, it was ballistic missiles, and then we heard the Secretary of State say Israel was going to strike first, and so we felt we had to. Otherwise, Iran would strike first.

Mr. Speaker, this administration's case for war makes the Bush administration's weapons of mass destruction story look like a well- documented Ph.D. dissertation.

Now, to the Members of Congress who disagree with my opposition to this war: I disagree because I have listened and I have heard, and I disagree with this war. But I say to them: If you disagree with this war, it is your prerogative, but you should vote. We should have a vote.

This vote is not about whether or not you support military action. It is about whether you believe Congress should have a say. In essence, it kind of meant should we exist. The Constitution said we should exist. We were created as a country because they were running from a king who did not want a Congress, who didn't have a Congress, who could just do whatever he wanted.

That is why the first thing that the Founders said is Congress should be the only one that had the power. Leader Jeffries said--and he went back to a Republican Member of the House of Representatives, Abraham Lincoln, who said: ``The provisions of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us''--no one man.

We took an oath. We swore to uphold Article I of the Constitution. Our constituents expect us to deliberate on matters of war and peace.

Did we deliberate on it? No.

Have we had hearings in the House Foreign Affairs Committee? No.

Have we had Mr. Jared Kushner here to talk about it? He was supposed to have been negotiating. No.

Have we had Steve Witkoff here? No.

Have we had anyone other than--they came for other reasons; we were able to ask a few questions--than Secretary Rubio come? No.

Has there been not dialogue and conversation? We have the so-called Gang of Eight, and they want to say that is

notification. Well, let's talk about it. We didn't ever debate anything on the floor of the House.

How many times has the Gang of Eight met? Once. Speaker Johnson would say that is sufficient. Even in that, this imminent strike was never mentioned. We heard from Mr. Himes, who is part of the Gang of Eight. The next time the Gang of Eight was heard was only a few hours before the one who wants to be king said he was going to attack. That is the only dialogue and conversation that took place before the strike.

There has been no debate on the floor, no trying to talk to the Members of Congress and, most importantly, the American people because just before the State of the Union, when the President had the whole world, we heard a whole 2-hour speech, the longest in the history of these United States of America, Iran was hardly a mention. If it was an imminent threat, I would think he would want to tell the Nation at that time that we had to do something imminently.

We have soldiers who have died, and the President starts talking about curtains and reconstruction and putting gold things up because he likes it. He told families, Gold Star families now unfortunately, that it wasn't serious enough.

This is a serious situation. Congress is a coequal branch of government. The Framers vested the war powers in this body because they believed no single person should bring this Nation to war alone, and so today we either defend our principles or surrender it. I urge my colleagues to join me in defending it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Queens and the great State of New York, the once and future chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Meeks, for his leadership and for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the American people, in support of our men and women in uniform, in support of the United States Constitution, and in support of this War Powers Resolution.

As we gather here today on the floor of the House of Representatives, there are mothers and fathers across this country who are in mourning, confronting the heartbreaking loss of their loved ones in uniform.

My prayers are with the families of the six American servicemembers who have been killed overseas in Donald Trump's war of choice. We are thankful for their heroism, their bravery, and their patriotism. May their memories always be a blessing.

Mr. Speaker, every Member who serves in this Chamber has sworn an oath of office. It seems as though many of my Republican colleagues have forgotten that. Let me remind them, in part, as to what it says: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . so help me God.''

In this remarkable country, the greatest Nation in the history of the world, we don't swear an oath to a king, to a political party, or to a man bent on desecrating the Oval Office. In the Congress, in the courts, and in the military, we swear an oath to the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, when the Framers drafted that glorious document, they feared the rise of a monarch, a demagogue, a tyrant. Today, we are here on the House floor because the Constitution, the binding document that makes us all Americans, is being trampled on by a wannabe king.

As Members of the House of Representatives, the branch of government that the Framers decided would be the closest to the American people, to reflect the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, the fears, the concerns, the anxieties, the life experiences, and the passions of the American people, we have a solemn obligation.

Democrats and Republicans alike, we are all guardians of the American people and of the Constitution. We swore an oath that compels us to ensure that this President's modern-day injuries and abuses come to an end.

We are at war now in the Middle East, spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran, when Republicans refused to find a dime to make healthcare affordable for the American people and to make sure that everyday Americans can go see a doctor when they need one.

This war has not been authorized by the people's Representatives here in this glorious House. Article I of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the sole authority to declare war. There is nothing ambiguous about that.

The Framers made that decision because they were concerned about kings who, throughout time, plunged their people into unnecessary wars, impoverishing them, or imperiling their lives by sending them off to a foreign conflict, often to pillage the resources of others for the benefit of a tyrant and his family. Sound familiar?

That is why the power to declare war was given explicitly to the House and to the Senate. It was given to the people's Representatives.

Abraham Lincoln, as a Member of this House in 1848, once profoundly observed: ``The provision of the Constitution giving the warmaking power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons--Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.''

That is from then Republican Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 1848.

That is why we have advanced this War Powers Resolution today. Donald Trump intentionally refused to get authorization from Congress for this war of choice, a war that has now exploded to more than 10 countries across the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, the President has not even bothered to offer a coherent answer to the most basic questions that any Commander in Chief should address when making the solemn decision to take us to war: Why are we doing this? What are our objectives? How will this all end?

Mr. Speaker, if this military action, this war, is so principled, why is the President unwilling or unable to make his case directly to the American people?

If the tremendous cost to American taxpayers in terms of sacred human lives and our Nation's precious resources is so justified, why does the President's rationale and the administration's rationale change every single day?

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. Iran is a bad actor. They must be confronted for their nuclear aspirations, painful human rights abuses, and repression of its own people, including the slaughter of thousands of civilians during the recent protests.

It is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a brutal regime that presents a serious threat to our allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, and the Gulf states. Yet, the President has a responsibility to justify plunging America into another war that will cost more American lives and billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in taxpayer resources. That is the President's obligation, and he has fallen woefully short of that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has offered at least five different reasons to justify the war, all of which are built on deception and misdirection.

First, Donald Trump claimed that the U.S. would attack Iran to protect the demonstrators who were risking their lives to demand democratic change. He even urged them weeks ago to rise up and seize state institutions. As the regime cracked down brutally, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens, the President did nothing.

Even as Donald Trump urged ordinary Iranians to take greater risks, there was never a viable military option for defending unarmed protesters against a brutal police state without sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Iran. It was an empty pledge to the Iranian people that the current bombing campaign does nothing to undo.

Second, Donald Trump and his advisers claimed that Iran's unwillingness to negotiate away its nuclear program left no choice but for us to attack.

Mr. Speaker, this is the very same person who told the country last summer that Iran's nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated. This is the same administration whose Department of Defense has said that the Iranian nuclear program was set back several years and whose State Department has said that Iran isn't even enriching uranium today.

Mr. Speaker, was the Commander in Chief confused in June, or is he confused right now?

It was not long ago when America could be sure that we were preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. The Iran nuclear agreement successfully did that until Donald Trump recklessly decided to pull the plug because he suffers from Obama derangement syndrome.

The President has spent much of the past year trying and failing to restore the same negotiated safeguards that he abandoned for partisan political reasons, and because of his failure to negotiate the guardrails that he destroyed, he has now taken us to war.

Third, President Trump claims that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States through its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could perhaps someday reach our shores. If Iran is actually on the verge of having that capability, the President should provide the evidence, but no such evidence has been presented to this Congress or to the American people. We could only assume that it does not exist.

Fourth, Donald Trump said that he wanted to achieve regime change. Donald Trump is an individual who promised Americans on the campaign trail that launching regime-change wars in the Middle East has been one of the most foolish and costly things that the United States has ever done. Those are Donald Trump's words on the campaign trail.

Candidate Trump said that, if elected, he would never get our country into an endless regime war. President Trump has now done the exact opposite.

Regime-change wars are among the most expensive things that we can undertake. And yes, Secretary Hegseth, for decades, they have failed to accomplish their objective.

Vietnam was a regime-change war. Afghanistan was a regime-change war. Iraq was a regime-change war. Despite the incredible bravery of our heroes and patriots, due to failed policy decisions, they didn't work out.

Even if the Iranian regime were to fall, we have no way to control what comes next, which most experts believe would be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-led government rising up and being just as repressive and antagonistic as the current theocracy and perhaps even more committed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Fifth and most recently, Donald Trump said: I ``had a feeling'' Iran would attack first, as some sort of rationale for going to war. Donald Trump had a feeling that Iran would attack.

The United States Government has initiated a war and put American lives at risk. Six patriots have already been killed. Thousands of American citizens are stranded in the Middle East, and he has plunged the entire Middle East into a war and chaos over a feeling.

It is outrageous. It is unacceptable. It shocks the conscience.

In the last few days, six servicemembers have died, and the Trump administration has acknowledged that more of our heroes are going to be killed. We have no concrete justification for why we are putting American troops in harm's way and spending billions of dollars on a foreign war while the affordability crisis rages here at home--a crisis Donald Trump said he would fix on day one but, instead, Republican policies have made worse.

Taxpayer dollars should be used to drop grocery prices, drop housing costs, and drop health insurance premiums. Instead, Donald Trump is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to drop bombs in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, the President's war is unwise. It is unpopular, unauthorized, unlawful, and unconstitutional. In the United States, we serve the rule of law, not the rule of man.

James Madison once wrote in 1788: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''

Our Constitution requires the President get approval from Congress before launching a war. That has not happened, and that is why this bipartisan resolution, led by Democrats, is on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

In their wisdom, the Framers believed that they had made it impossible for a President to do what Donald Trump has just done and that no other President has done before: launched a major war in the Middle East without the approval of Congress.

That is what Donald Trump's time in office has been all about: failure after failure, betrayal after betrayal, disaster after disaster.

In his return to the Presidency, Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump has left America less prosperous, less safe, and less free. He has hurt us again and again, failed us again and again, and now, by launching this unauthorized war of choice, he is setting fire to our Constitution.

The American people deserve better. Democrats are committed to continuing to fight to use American taxpayer dollars to lower the high costs of living, to fix our broken healthcare system, and to clean up corruption.

I stand on the floor here today to make sure that those taxpayer dollars are being used in ways that are designed to make life better for the American people, not launching another endless war in the Middle East that is destined to cost more American lives and waste billions, if not trillions, in taxpayer dollars.

Democrats are here to stand up for the American people. Democrats are here to stand up for our men and women in uniform. Democrats are here to stand up for the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Democrats will not rest until this national nightmare has ended and America can continue to march toward a more perfect Union.

Vote ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 38, Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran have had an adversarial relationship since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In 1979, Iranian theocratic revolutionaries removed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was a close U.S. ally. and the current Islamic Republic was declared. The establishment of the Islamic Republic, also known as the Iranian regime, in conjunction with the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, laid the groundwork for the United States to have no diplomatic relations with Iran beginning in 1980.

Since 1979, the United States has used sanctions and diplomacy to deter, constrain, and encourage the Iranian regime to change its egregious behavior. That behavior includes supporting terrorism at home and becoming the globe's largest state sponsor of terrorism, developing a nuclear weapon program, proliferation activities, destabilizing the region through its ballistic missile and drone development, and attacks directly and indirectly killing Americans for over four decades. That sanction posture is now over four decades old.

In 1979, the Carter Administration imposed sanctions on Iran in response to the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress expanded sanctions on Iran to deter and compel the Iranian regime to stop supporting international terrorism and its pursuit of advanced weapons. including chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the United States and our allies learned about previously undisclosed nuclear facilities in Iran. In response. the United States and our allies imposed further sanctions on Iran to convince the Iranian regime to limit its nuclear activities. The Iranian regime did not stop or limit the activities, so in 2006 the United Nations Security Council imposed multinational sanctions preventing trade with Iran. In 2009. the Iranian regime violently cracked down on mass protests over its 2009 presidential election. In response, Congress targeted more sanctions on Iran that aimed at Iran's oil exports and economic sector. Congress determined that to lift those sanctions, the Iranian regime must stop its support of international terrorism and end its proliferation activities. That has never happened, as the Iranian regime is the number one state sponsor of terrorism and has continued to pursue nuclear and advanced weapons.

In 2015, the Obama Administration tried a new approach of appeasement and entered the United States into the disastrous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA). This is also known as the ``2015 Iran nuclear deal,'' which required Iran to curb its nuclear program, reduce uranium enrichment by 98 percent, and dismantle most centrifuges. In exchange, the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom agreed to provide significant relief from international sanctions imposed on Iran. This deal was disastrous because Iran continued to enrich uranium and pursue their nuclear weapons goals. In addition to that disastrous policy, the Obama Administration transferred $1.7 billion in cash to Iran in January 2016. On top of that, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal allowed billions in new commerce to flow into Iran. Again, remember that the Iranian regime is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. That money benefited the Iranian regime's dangerous behavior.

In 2018, President Trump pulled the United States out of the disastrous 2015 Iran nuclear deal and announced that the United States would reimpose sanctions on Iran. With no delay, Iran escalated its regional military activities, which included directly attacking the United States forces in the region.

The Biden Administration was unable to deter the Iranian regime. In addition, the Biden Administration recklessly provided Iran with sanctions relief that gave Iran access to approximately 816 billion in previously frozen funds. Those shortsighted actions of the Biden Administration sadly played a part in the build-up of the October 7th attack on Israel by the Iranian regime-backed terrorist organization, Hamas. In response, Congress passed new sanctions on any foreign financial institution that engages in transactions with the $6 billion in Iranian funds. In 2024, my bill, the Holding Iranian Leaders Accountable Act, was signed into law to expose the Iranian regime's financial corruption.

In 2025, back in the White House, the Trump Administration renewed a ``Maximum Pressure'' campaign on the Iranian regime. The actions by President Trump and his Administration recognize that nearly five decades of sanctions imposed bilaterally and by the United Nations have failed to stop Iran's destructive ambitions. The Trump Administration recognizes that years of intensive but ultimately futile negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program accomplished nothing and were rightly rejected by bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate at the end of the Obama Administration.

Today, the House is considering a War Powers Resolution. This War Powers Resolution does not account for the nearly five decades of history. This resolution is not about whether we support the major combat operation that is currently ongoing in Iran--it is about curbing the power of the Executive Branch, specifically the President, to protect the United States from the Iranian regime. Taking away the authorities granted to the President under the War Powers Resolution in the very midst of an ongoing major combat operation is reckless and shortsighted.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Congress will have an opportunity to assert its constitutional role when we vote for the second time on a War Powers Act resolution to force President Trump to seek legal authority for his unilateral military campaign in Iran.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a cosponsor of this measure, I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' to reclaim our constitutional role under Article I, Section 8, as the sole branch of government with the power to decide whether our country goes to war.

On February 28, the President, without consultation with Congress and almost all of our longtime allies, ordered military strikes against Iran, taking the United States into a war now in its seventh week.

Despite the massive costs of this war and the international energy crisis it has created, to date, the President has never articulated what exactly was the imminent threat to the homeland on that date, nor has he laid out a clear, practical plan for success.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 7 weeks, the most arduous and heart- wrenching cost of this war has been borne by 13 American soldiers, who lost their lives, and their families. Hundreds of servicemembers have been injured, and hundreds of innocent civilians, some the very victims of Iran's brutal regime that President Trump said he would liberate, have been killed.

As a result of this war, our servicemembers have had their deployments in the Middle East abnormally extended, such as the sailors on the USS Gerald Ford, which today is on day 294, with no end in sight. Thousands of marines have been waiting for weeks in the Middle East aboard amphibious ships as plans for the Strait of Hormuz keep changing.

At home, the war has driven up inflation, driven down the stock market, raised interest rates, and sharply driven up energy prices.

President Trump ignored U.S. military advice that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz where 20 percent of the world's oil and 30 percent of its fertilizer transits.

Mr. Speaker, researchers at Brown University a few days ago released a real-time, running Iran war cost tracker that calculates the increased cost of gasoline and diesel fuel since February. As of this morning, American consumers have paid $19.9 billion in added costs. If you go to the website, which is on the poster here, you can watch in real time as the meter runs.

The average price of gas at the war start was $2.98. Today it is $4.12. Diesel was $3.67, and today it is $5.65. This morning, in my district, on the way to the airport in Enfield, Connecticut, gas is $4.29, and diesel is a staggering $6.19.

Any Member of this House visiting a farm, like a dairy farm that I visited back home during the Easter break, or small businesses like homebuilders who run their equipment on diesel, has heard about the shock and hit that they are taking in terms of keeping their operations sustainable and profitable.

The entire world had high hopes that the present 2-week cease-fire would quickly pivot to a longer term deal and opening of the strait. But after negotiations fell through, the President announced that he was instituting a naval blockade of all Iranian ports with no allied support, another example that he continues to believe he is free to escalate this war without any obligation to adhere to constitutional norms.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Every legal authority indicates that under the law of the sea, this is an act of war. In testimony to the Senate on January 28, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio himself said: ``A blockade is an act of war.''

Mr. Speaker, the one role that the Trump administration has acknowledged Congress must play is to vote on funding this war. There are reports that a request is coming to us for as much as $200 billion to pay for his initiative.

Let me be clear. This body is not and should not be a rubberstamp that

forces the cost onto taxpayers for war decisions which were made outside the law.

Mr. Speaker, 228 years ago, James Madison wrote the following: ``The Constitution supposes, what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.''

On March 5, I joined 211 of my colleagues in voting ``yes'' on the War Powers Resolution, H. Con. Res. 38. This War Powers Resolution failed by a vote of 212 to 219.

This week, this body has another chance to show the American people that we are listening to them and are aware of the damage caused by this conflict and have an opportunity to rein in the unilateral actions of this President that is dangerously weakening and isolating or country.

Congress cannot wait any longer to act. I implore my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution when it comes to the floor this week.