Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we welcome thousands of law enforcement personnel to Washington for National Police Week. We remember officers who lost their lives in service to our communities and our country, and we thank all officers who work to keep us safe while reflecting on how we can invest in law enforcement to better serve our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this resolution because we strongly support our local law enforcement officers. Yet, we also strongly support our State, Federal, and Tribal law enforcement officers, as well. Why are these brave officers not part of this resolution? This is a strange development.

In the last Congress, the 118th Congress, we passed H. Con. Res. 40 to honor local law enforcement. We also passed H. Res. 363 in 2023 to recognize the police lives lost that year and the importance of funding and supporting all law enforcement, Federal, State, county, and local. These were followed by H. Con. Res. 106 and H. Res. 1213 in 2024, which did the same.

This year the majority has chosen to have us solely recognizing local law enforcement. Why is that? What explains this strange omission of the Federal police officers who serve us?

With President Trump back in office, the majority apparently now sees fit to honor only local officers and not the Federal law enforcement officers who fought so valiantly to protect every Member of this body and the Senate, our staffs, and our democracy on January 6, 2021. Apparently, their commitment to backing the blue is so weak that they now won't even mention Federal officers because they have to maintain the pretense that Capitol officers did something wrong by defending us against the violent rampage of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and other extremist marauders who stormed the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

Is that right or will the majority please prepare a resolution honoring Federal law enforcement, as well that we can bring to the floor?

This is one troubling sign among many of an ideological abandonment of our Federal law enforcement officers and there are more than 137,000 of them, not just the Capitol Police.

Speaker Johnson still refuses to hang a simple plaque honoring those officers as is required by Federal law. The bill mandating the creation and placement of the plaque, H.R. 2471, was signed into law on March 15, 2022, and the plaque was supposed to have been erected within 1 year of that, March 15, 2023.

The plaque is finished, it is ready to be placed, and it looks like this. It reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6th, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''

Well, it seems it is already being forgotten by the GOP majority or at least they want us to forget it. Are my friends so captive to conspiracy theories and revisionist fantasies about January 6 that they will not do the bare minimum to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail to protect every person in this room who was there, including Members on my side of the aisle and Members on the other side of the aisle?

The people we are failing to honor by not hanging this plaque include at least 140 police officers who were beaten with poles, bats, American flags, Trump flags, Confederate battle flags, and their own shields. These are people who lost fingertips. They suffered concussions, broken jaws, and broken ribs. They had heart attacks and strokes. They sustained multiple other violent injuries and suffer from them, many of them, to this day, in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement officers in the United States in this century.

This affront is now adding further symbolic insult to the grievous injury that began at the beginning of this administration. President Trump granted full pardons to more than 1,500 insurrectionists and rioters and commuted the sentence of the rightwing extremists who spearheaded the attack on this Chamber and on the police officers who defended us.

More than 600 of those defendants whose pardons are full, complete, and unconditional were charged with assaulting or obstructing law enforcement officers. Now President Trump, backed by his own Justice Department, thinks that the violent insurrectionists should be compensated, not the police officers, but rather the people who perpetrated this assault on America.

President Trump said: A lot of the people in the government really like that group of people. He is creating a compensation fund not for the officers

and their families who fought and suffered and several died to save our country but for the domestic terrorists, as leaders of the Republican Party described them at the time, who tried to destroy it.

That is the decision, to cast his lot with the Proud Boys and other extremists that he incited on that day.

Many of the officers who served on January 6 feel betrayed by the officials whose lives they saved that day. Take former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell who was nearly crushed to death on January 6.

Sergeant Gonell is an Army veteran from the Iraq war and was upholding his oath to defend and protect the seat of our Nation's government. He said he saw violence on that day here at the Capitol far worse than anything he experienced fighting for America abroad.

Despite the fact that he and many other officers nearly lost their lives and now face lifelong injuries that have forced him out of the line of police work, they still cannot get approved for Public Safety Officers' Benefits, which provide disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

As Sergeant Gonell recently told my staff, Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol. He noted that at every turn when Republicans could honor the bravery of law enforcement officers that day, they have instead chosen to do nothing.

Of course, if my colleagues across the aisle want to focus on local law enforcement, then I might ask why we are simply honoring them with this concurrent resolution and not taking more meaningful action, like restoring millions of dollars in Federal grants that help support them that were recently terminated by the Department of Justice at the direction of DOGE and Elon Musk.

Those grants supported programs like the rural violent crime reduction initiative, which delivered financial assistance directly to dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America and allowed agencies to upgrade technology and equipment, hire and deploy personnel, support victim services and crime prevention programming, and fill in other gaps in policing for small, rural, underfunded police agencies.

We should be grateful for all of our officers, Federal, State, county, and local, who help keep us safe while people are in their communities and while Members of Congress come to Washington, D.C. We should be grateful for all of them.

Let's join together to uplift all law enforcement officers whether they are local or State, Tribal, or Federal, and let's support them symbolically with our words but more importantly with our actions. Let's restore all of the funding, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been cut or that face cuts by this new administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee denounce the assault, the violent assault, on Congress, the Capitol, our police officers on January 6, 2021. I wonder if he would work with me to help enforce the law that was signed on March 15, 2022 by President Biden for a plaque to be placed in honor of the police officers who served us so valiantly and so bravely and saved our lives on that day.

It was supposed to have been up by March 15, 2023, and the Speaker simply has remained noncommittal and indifferent. The plaque is actually completed. It is ready to be put up. We can show it again. It is not as big as this poster, but it is the smallest token of recognition and honor that we should be able to extend to the Capitol officers, many of whom are still with us on the force, for their sacrifice and the sacrifice that their families made based on their work that day defending us.

I wonder if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would follow through on his very impressive statement that we all denounce the violence of any kind against officers, including the more than 140 Capitol officers who were wounded, injured, hospitalized, some of them permanently disfigured and maimed on that day as well as officers around the country.

Now, on the point about defunding the police. Look who is defunding the police: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and their silent partners in Congress are defunding the police. They just terminated $500 million worth of grants, lost funding from the Department of Justice providing Federal support for local violence reduction by community police, community policing and prosecution, victim services, juvenile justice, child protection, substance abuse and mental health treatment, corrections and reentry, justice systems enhancements, research and evaluation, and

other State, county, and local level public police and safety functions.

I brought this to the attention of the Judiciary Committee because, again, this was an operation by DOGE. We have got a Federal District Court opinion from northern California saying that DOGE basically has no legal status because it wasn't created by Congress. It might be a completely renegade operation in an attempt to create a fourth branch of government.

In any event, those of us who voted for the money, and that is people on both sides of the aisle, voted for the money to be distributed by the Department of Justice to local grantees didn't even know about this. I shared with the chairman and with all the members of the committee, the one name of the DOGE employee, an unelected bureaucrat, a juvenile bureaucrat from Silicon Valley who worked his way up through Tesla and so on, and they ended up in DOGE, cut hundreds of millions of dollars to local police. They defunded the police.

DOGE defunded the police. Donald Trump defunded the police. I introduced an amendment to try to restore every single grant that they cut off in severing that Federal investment in local police.

My colleagues uttered not a word, not a word in opposition to my amendment, but they all voted against it simply because they are walking the line with Elon Musk right off the edge of the Constitution because there is no constitutional grounding for anything that guy is doing.

They walked the line behind Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and they just defunded hundreds of millions of dollars from community law enforcement and public safety, so don't give me that lecture about defunding the police, which our side has never supported, but their side has just colluded in right now in terms of what the Department of Justice did.

That doesn't even get into their attempt to dismantle completely the ATF, shut down critical functions in the Department of Justice that protect us from foreign involvement in our elections, to take down the kleptocracy task force and so on. I don't want any lectures coming in our direction, either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start just by asking my friend from Ohio whether he is referring to me when he uses the word ``you'' or if he is referring more generally to some other people because I would categorically deny having done any of those things.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Well, the gentleman refers exclusively--and I think he is aware of this because he is an extremely clever debater--to things that different local governments did or did not do. I don't know what Denver, Colorado, or Burlington, Vermont, did. I know what the United States Congress does, and we never defunded the police, and we never tried to defund the police.

On the other hand, my good friend, I believe, participated in--and if he didn't, I am happy to stand corrected, but I know a bunch of his colleagues said they wanted to defund the FBI, just like those who want to defund the ATF and shut it down right now, so that is a reality.

In any event, why don't we talk about what Congress can actually do? The President's new budget proposes to cut--so this is something that my colleague and I could agree on--$1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs which support local police departments to reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.

Would my colleague work with me to oppose that suggestion in the President's budget? They want to cut $646 million from FEMA for violence and terrorism prevention. Why do they want to do that? I have no idea.

They want to cut $545 million from the FBI, cutting its workforce by more than 2,000 personnel. That sounds like defunding law enforcement to me.

I know they don't seem to be as fond of Federal law enforcement as they are of local law enforcement, but do they really want to cut more than half a billion dollars from the FBI to be fighting criminals and terrorists? For the life of me, I don't understand how they can do that while they swear fealty to law enforcement. It just makes no sense.

They want to cut $491 million from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, making our cyber and physical infrastructure far more vulnerable to attack by foreign bad actors like Vladimir Putin and President Xi and Kim Jong-un. I know there are some people in high levels of office who are fond of those people, who write valentines to Kim Jong-Un, but the rest of us would like to be protected from them. We shouldn't be dismantling the cybersecurity infrastructure of America.

They want to cut $212 million from the DEA. Can you imagine? If a Democratic President had proposed any of this, they would be screaming, their hair would be on fire, but Donald Trump proposed it, and they just mumble along like it is no big deal.

What about all of these efforts to defund Federal law enforcement, like the DOJ, FEMA, FBI? Will our colleagues work with us to restore that money?

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

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

Yes, the record is becoming increasingly clear here. My colleagues don't want to do anything about the dismantling of hundreds of millions of dollars of funds that we appropriated at the Department of Justice that have been mysteriously deleted by a DOGE employee from local law enforcement. These are grants that go to local police departments and victim assistance agencies all over the country. They got rid of that.

Then the President comes forward with a budget that will cut more than $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion from local law enforcement to go after violent crime, hate crime, to defend the victims of rape and sexual assault, and my colleague changes the subject once again to talk about weaponization.

We have never seen weaponization of the government like what we have seen under Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. The first thing they did was they got rid of a dozen experienced veteran criminal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice simply because they had worked to prosecute January 6 insurrectionists and rioters.

Yes, let me repeat that. They fired prosecutors for doing nothing more than their jobs to prosecute the criminals who beat the daylights out of our police officers, and they sacked all of those prosecutors. They were some of the most experienced veteran prosecutors that we have in the U.S. Attorney's office. Then he named to be the acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. He was just forced to withdraw that nomination because he was standing by a Neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist who said that Hitler's problem was that he didn't finish the job. He also said that those who are born with disabilities should be killed at birth. Ed Martin called him a great man and a great leader.

He withdrew the nomination, but still he put Ed Martin in the Department of Justice in a position that is not subject to Senate confirmation. They have weaponized the Department of Justice. They have weaponized the Department of State. They are going after anybody they describe as a political enemy. Ed Martin was writing letters to Members of Congress when he didn't like what they had to say.

We have never seen weaponization of the government like what is taking place right now. They took the U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, and they sacked her because she refused to take the position that Mel Gibson should get his guns back. That wasn't part of her job, but they tried to conscript her to it. The pardon attorney refused to do it because she said that was not her job and there were too many questions about domestic violence episodes.

If you want to have a separate hearing on weaponization of the government under Donald Trump, let's do it. In the meantime, let's support local law enforcement and let's support Federal law enforcement. Let's have another resolution praising all law enforcement for what they do, and let's get that plaque up.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 15, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech that he just gave. It is probably the most hypocritical speech that anybody could give, but I am glad he gave it because the truth is I am well prepared to answer for this.

Let's talk about engagements against Iran and what is going on. This is not the first time that this happened. Joe Biden was engaged against Iran.

Why?

It is because of an imminent threat.

Let's examine the difference between when Joe Biden was engaged and when President Trump was engaged. When Joe Biden engaged, it is because the Houthis, a direct arm of Iran, were attacking the United States of America's ships and merchant marine vessels and doing what they have been doing for decades: picking a fight.

Mr. Biden launched Operation Prosperity Guardian against Iranian- backed Houthis. That went on not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days, and not for 6 months. It went on for almost 1 year until January of 2025, from November 2023 until January 2025.

What happened during that period of time?

How many times did my Democratic colleagues or Republicans offer a War Powers resolution to say: Remove all U.S. forces from this fight against Iran?

I have the counter down here. It is zero.

It wasn't like what happened with President Trump. President Trump is defending against an imminent threat.

What was this imminent threat?

It wasn't just vessels being shot. It was, very specifically, not long before that, three Americans killed at a place called Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, 46 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves; Sergeant Sanders, 24 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves, and Sergeant Moffett, 23 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves. These are real imminent threats. Our bases in Iraq, Syria, and other places were being attacked.

However, before President Trump ever conducted any level of operation, Democrats introduced legislation to direct the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, a war powers introduced before anything ever happened.

Now, if we go back here to President Biden, there were a couple of pieces of legislation that took place bipartisanly. One of them I brought up many times. It was Republicans and Democrats voting overwhelmingly to tell the President, tell the executive branch, literally: Use any and all means necessary to destroy Iranian nuclear anything. That is what we told the President. That is what we told the executive branch. My colleague voted on it. I voted on it.

It was not war powers, not to say remove all U.S. forces from hostilities, not like Democrats have brought up before this began and then again bringing it up, stopping before a B-2 bomber struck, not again when they introduced it this time, you know, 6/26, 6/27, not on 1/29, not on 2/18. The list goes on and on again and again and again. Today, again, we are doing another war powers.

What changed? What changed from not one war powers from anybody to half a dozen? I guess we are going to do another one next week. Politics. Everything that my colleague just talked about, his hypocritical remarks about we need to do these things, it is all politics.

My Democratic colleagues are not paying attention to national security at all. They refuse to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran has been: them killing our servicemembers, them attacking us in place after place. They don't acknowledge it.

When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was okay, no war powers needed. It went on for about a year. When President Trump responds: War powers, war powers, war powers, war powers, every week that they can do it. They tried doing it last week, as well. That is the hypocrisy.

My colleague brought up some of our servicemembers who were killed. I take that very seriously. I have seen that beautiful flag behind the Speaker draped across caskets far too many times. I take it seriously every time. I personally believe that any time that a servicemember is killed, they should be lying in state, lying in honor here beneath the dome of the U.S. Capitol. I think they earn it more than anybody, anybody killed in action in defense of this country. That is my own personal belief on that.

I want to ask my colleague: Do you know the folks? Do you know the folks who were killed that you mentioned? Do you know their names? You brought up a number. Is that just politics? I know I am supposed to address the Chair, but I am happy to yield a little time to my colleague.

Do you know the members of the military that were killed?

He is sitting there silent, just using it for politics.

My brothers and sisters in arms are not politics. They are out defending the United States of America against the most imminent threat that we have faced for decades, a threat that has killed hundreds of our servicemembers in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, that, as I already mentioned, killed three of our servicemembers at Tower 22, absolutely was shooting at us and our merchant marine fleet, like what they had nothing to say about when President Biden was conducting attacks against them for over a year, but I am going to tell you who they are, since to my Democratic colleagues, they are just a number for politics.

Army Sergeant Declan Coady, 20 years old, from Des Moines, Iowa; Army Captain Cody Khork, 35 years old; Army Major Jeffrey O'Brien, 45 years old; Army Master Sergeant Noah Tietjens, 45 years old; Army Staff Sergeant Benjamin Pennington; Air Force Major John Klinner; Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Army; Air Force Master Sergeant Tyler Simmons; Air Force Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt; Master Sergeant Nicole Amor; Major Savino; Captain Koval, U.S. Air Force; Captain Angst, KC- 135 pilot.

They are not just numbers. They are not part of an operation that has no

plan. They are not part of an operation responding to no imminent threat. They are taking it to an enemy that has attacked us month after month, year after year, that bipartisanly we have agreed on: Use any and all means to destroy them, to destroy their nuclear capabilities. We voted on it. The only difference is that my Democratic colleagues want to reference a number of servicemembers killed because they just see it as politics. They don't have the slightest clue of who they are, where they are from, what their ages were, or their respect for the Gold Star families that now exist. They are only interested in the difference in politics, which is what these charts demonstrate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the gentlewoman who just spoke was the one who said, to directly quote her, Americans are ``leverage.'' I guess that is how they look at our servicemembers, as well, unfortunately. I don't guess. I assess. I assess, as I spoke about already and reaffirm my remarks, they use our servicemembers as leverage, as politics, and it is disgusting.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleague who just spoke that Iran, as of yet, does not have a missile that can reach the United States of America that we know about, but they have reached out and affirmatively killed Americans. I just gave a list. Prior to this conflict ever beginning, Sergeant Moffett, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Rivers were killed, killed in action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should probably stick around for this.

They might be the most vicious regime, but they don't have the teeth that they had before. As he pointed out, we sunk their Navy. We have destroyed their Air Force, their drone manufacturing facilities, their caches of weapons, their mobile launching platforms, and their fixed launching platforms.

We are, as we speak, in the midst of a cease-fire. In the midst of a cease-fire, my colleagues--the words I want to use would probably be taken down, but let's just say, in an ill-advised way--want to say, remove all U.S. Forces in the midst of this cease-fire that we are in. That is crazy.

They talk about wanting diplomacy, but they don't. This goes back to what I opened up with. It is all pure politics for my colleagues.

You have Joe Biden. He is launching attacks against these Iranian forces for almost a year, not one War Power Resolution. President Trump, half a dozen of them, and we will do another one next week.

They want to talk about servicemembers, but they can't tell you who they are because it is just a number to them.

They want to put more support into supporting Ukraine in a conflict where no American has been killed yet. Mind you, I have no love for Russia whatsoever, but when it comes to Iran who has been killing Americans, nothing. Crickets. It is pure politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a miscalculation to tell the military to end a war, a conflict, a battle, or anything else. We work to end threats. We work to eliminate imminent threats against the United States of America.

There is a very important difference there to think that this was not thoroughly calculated, the approach at which this goes of destroying surface to air, then bringing in different aircraft, sinking a Navy, destroying drone manufacturing, every single target calculated in very, very specific orders.

Either you believe that about our military, or you don't. I can tell you that I know for a fact that is exactly the way that our military has conducted this operation: in a pinpointed, methodical, pedantic drumbeat of a way to address targets in a very specific order over and over again, only paused because of the ongoing negotiations and cease- fire that my colleagues want to say to remove all forces in the midst of.

That is their demand today: Remove all forces, as they have demanded in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we have a President who knows where he is and can find his way on or off of a stage. I know my colleagues had to literally remove their President that they did not ask for any war powers authorities for when he was conducting his attacks against Iran for about 1 year. They didn't ask for that even though it was somebody who they literally removed from the ballot because of senility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will educate my colleague that the United States of America goes to the greatest lengths to use the most pinpointed weapons, at great expense, precision

weapons over and over again, so that if any civilian is killed, it is tragic, but it is never anything more than an accident because of the efforts that we go to, to be pinpointed in any strike that we carry out. That is a fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hoped that my colleague who was just speaking would stay for more debate, but I would be curious. The gentlewoman intends to vote to tell the President that all U.S. Forces must be removed from hostilities. Do they feel as though that is a sound strategy to reach the conclusion that they want in the midst of a cease-fire? It sounds like they haven't calculated that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman is still here. Does she really not know why we are there? She really doesn't know about the American servicemembers who were killed even before this who I mentioned? She doesn't know about the American bases that were struck? Really? You are a Member of Congress who does not know this?

That is crazy. I will leave it at that. I will leave it at that for this moment, but we can get you classified briefings on this. We would be having one today were it not for this debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague that was just speaking know that almost all Democrats and Republicans literally gave the President the direction, voted, to include the top Democrat that is walking up right now, to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is literally what they voted for, gave the direction: use any and all means necessary.

I have said it many times. I am saying it again. It is exactly what they voted for. The difference today is politics. The difference today is it is not Joe Biden, who can't find his way off a stage. It is President Trump. That is why there were zero war powers resolutions under Joe Biden and half a dozen or more at this point for President Trump--pure politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the minority leader.

When my Democrat colleagues come down here and just lie, they are deserving of ad hominem attacks. When they come down here and try to say something about servicemembers killed but didn't take the time to learn a thing about them, learn their names, where they are from, but just want a number, you are deserving of an ad hominem attack.

When the minority leader comes to the floor and tries to say--even though he has had various Gang of Eight meetings and things like that; more classified briefings than even I have had--and tries to pretend that he doesn't know the intelligence, what General Caine is doing, the methodical approach to what is going on here, the very slim number of Iranian ordnance that are making it past our defenses, the commitments of our allies, or the threats of them obtaining a nuclear weapon or what they would do with it, like the way Russia threatens the rest of world, he is deserving of an ad hominem attack, and so is everybody else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the President for all the work he has done working to end an imminent threat against the United States of America.

My Democrat colleagues used to agree that it was an imminent threat. They did. They wisely agreed that it was an imminent threat. They voted, as I have said many times, literally to say--my colleague over there, the one who was just speaking--``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' They voted on it.

They voted on it numerous times to say the existential threat that Iran is against us. They just don't believe it when the name is President Trump.

When it is Joe Biden, no War Powers Resolutions. When it is President Trump, do them every week, do them every day. No longer do they believe that they are an imminent threat. No longer do they believe use any and all means necessary.

I think my Democratic colleagues really want America to lose. I think they want America to lose. That is why in the midst of this cease-fire that is going on, they are literally offering a resolution to say: Remove any and all U.S. forces from hostilities in or within Iran. I believe that is out of a desire to lose.

It is really sad. They are over there laughing as we speak. As I levy an accusation that they want America to lose, they are over here chuckling and laughing. That is sad. I can see them mouth: He said that I am sad.

I am sad. I am sad that my colleagues talk about the numbers of servicemembers killed, but they don't know a thing about them. That is sad.

He is waving his hand.

I am sad that my colleagues want the United States to lose, and they sit there and laugh about it.

That is sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, they have no time remaining to close?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close it with this: It is sad. It is sad that they are over there laughing about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my War Powers Resolution, and I do so today because the Constitution of the United States actually demands it, and so does the conscience of the House of Representatives.

In my view, Donald Trump--and I think that in most of the world's view--has dragged the American people into a war of choice--fact-- launched without congressional authorization.

The President did not discuss or work with any of our allies. There was no coherent strategy. This was an open-ended and undefined military engagement, and that is exactly what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain.

However, we are here today to talk about the authority of Congress, whether you agree with the war or not. It is the authority that lies within Congress.

On February 28, the President launched an attack while negotiations between Iran and the United States were actively going on. Diplomacy was going on. Iran's foreign minister had stated just days before that a historic agreement was within reach. There was a path forward that did not require a single American servicemember to be put in harm's way. Instead of pursuing diplomacy, the President started this war, costing the American people billions of dollars, losing 13 American lives, and so many other men, women, and children who were not a party and who were civilians.

The President abandoned the diplomatic path, not because diplomacy failed, but because it was never truly given a chance. As a result of the administration's decisions, the new Iranian regime is more hard- line. The Strait of Hormuz, which was previously open, is now closed. The cost of gas for the American people has skyrocketed, and this fragile cease-fire is one threatening civilization tweet away from failing.

What has this war accomplished?

The administration and Donald Trump himself may be declaring victory, but let's look at the contradictory objectives of this administration which were used to justify the war.

First, it was that Iran posed an imminent threat, but no imminent threat was ever demonstrated. Then it was about nuclear weapons, but the administration itself had declared the nuclear program obliterated. Then it was about ballistic missiles. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the goalposts keep moving because there was never a clear objective in the beginning.

Meanwhile, as I have stated, the costs keep going up. American servicemembers have been killed, and thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed since the beginning of this war. These are not just statistics. These are human beings, and we have a moral duty to acknowledge that reality.

Then there is the impact on gas pumps and grocery stores. This war has disrupted global travel and trade, halted flights in and out of the Middle East, and led to major shipping reroutes. Leading energy analysts warn it could be a long time before prices go down even after the war ends and that we are looking at elevated energy costs well into the end of 2026.

The 2-week cease-fire is set to expire on April 22, and thus far, neither side has indicated what comes next beyond continued blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. We are standing at the edge of a cliff, and Congress must act before the President pushes us off. Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.

This resolution does not leave America defenseless. It preserves the President's authority to defend the United States and our allies from imminent attack. Actually, it says, plainly and constitutionally, that one person does not have the power to take this Nation to war alone.

Just yesterday, we heard more American troops were being sent to the Middle East. The Constitution ultimately, again, no matter whether you agree with the war or do not agree with the war, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution grants the Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Even Donald Trump acknowledged this saying: As a war, you are supposed to get approval from Congress.

This is not a skirmish. This is not a military operation. This is a war.

Now, we are not the Iranian Parliament, and we should not be rubberstamps. We are the Article I branch of government, and we serve as a check and balance on Presidential overreach.

This duty is not optional. Today, this body has a choice. We can assert our constitutional authority and demand a return to the only path that leads to lasting security, diplomacy, negotiation, verification, and deterrence. Or we can surrender that authority and let this war grind on without accountability, without strategy, and without an end in sight.

It is oversight, especially on this committee. We should be having witnesses before us so that we can understand and talk and move and ultimately have a vote on this floor to determine whether or not we are going to authorize a war.

I, for example, believe in diplomacy. I also believe in the Constitution, and I choose to defend the principle that war is a last resort and not a first option. Others may disagree with me, but we should still have a vote here on the House floor.

The American people are watching. The camera of history is recording.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether or not they agree with the war or not, let's do our duty and our responsibility. If they want to vote to declare a war, then vote that way. If they believe, as I do, we should have diplomacy and we should not be at war now, then vote that way. We are all Members of the House of Representatives. Let's protect this institution. Let's vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, the gentleman is from Florida, so he knows oranges. I am from New York, the Big Apple. I know apples. The gentleman's argument, clearly, he doesn't know apples from oranges.

Let me just say this: I never challenged the gentleman's patriotism to this country. He better never challenge my patriotism to this country. To think that he has a privilege to do that? No. There is no one that has more patriotism. I have family members who lost their lives for this country. I am here because of my patriotism to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the esteemed Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is our job to determine when our troops should go, and that is what this is about. We all support our troops, but it is our determination in Congress when we should send them, not a king.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), an esteemed member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the minority leader and the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I support 100 percent our troops, but I strongly disagree with anyone who would say to trust, just simply trust, the President of the United States. That is not patriotism. That is not why we are here. That is why we have separate but equal branches of government. Otherwise, it is just: Trust the king.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

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

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

A quote from Abraham Lincoln: ``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.''

Donald Trump thinks he is a king. As I said, I support the troops, but I don't trust the President of the United States just by his saying that he knows what he is doing. Let's see what he has actually done.

March 3, Trump says the Navy will escort tankers, no matter what, and guarantee the free flow of energy to the world.

March 9, he says he is thinking about taking over the Strait of Hormuz.

March 15, he says it is someone else's problem, questions whether the U.S. should even be there, and notes we have a lot of oil, seemingly not understanding that the price of oil is based on global prices.

March 21, he threatens to bomb Iran's power plants within 48 hours if they don't open the strait.

March 26, he announces a cease-fire and says Iran has agreed to open the strait.

That same week, CENTCOM announces it is sending ships to clear mines from the strait that Iran supposedly agreed to open.

This past Sunday, April 12, he says the Navy is going to blockade the blockade and interdict ships in the strait.

The man says something one day and then something else. We had some signs up earlier of what this man has said. We had young people in here, and some of the words he used on Easter Sunday. He is supposed to be the leader of the free world, and then he puts out a picture of himself and tells you who he thinks he is. He thinks he is Jesus. He thinks he can do whatever he wants to do because he is Donald Trump. He thinks that his word is what governs.

This is a constitutional democracy, and people died to create this Congress, to make sure that this Congress is a separate but equal branch of government, and that this Congress, if you are a patriot, would stand up in oversight of a President.

Yes, that is what the people of the United States will do, and the people of the United States do not want to continue this war with this individual who says he is a king.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 30) expressing support for local law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate National Police Week. In so doing, we honor those officers who have been killed in the line of duty, as well as those who bravely serve their communities every single day.

More than 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that day falls as Police Week.

Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D.C., this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I extend my sincere gratitude to all local law enforcement officers and their families for their sacrifice and their service.

These police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities, and they do this despite the obstacles and dangers that we all know that they face. Police officers rush into harm's way out of duty and devotion to their sacred oath: ``To Protect and Serve.''

The families of law enforcement officers also bear the burden of service through missed birthdays, school events, and sports games. This resolution is a small way in which we can show our thanks. I encourage all Members to take time to pray, show their support for, and say thank you to our local law enforcement heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who served in law enforcement as a sheriff, for his work in putting this together and sponsoring the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans honor local law enforcement, Democrats defund them. Five years ago this summer, they spent the whole summer doing that. That is all you would hear from Democrats, got to defund the local police. We have been consistent. We have condemned violence every single time it happened whether it was January 6 or the summer of 2020. They haven't.

The summer of 2020, I still remember the guy standing in front of the burning building on CNN saying, this is a mostly peaceful protest. They spent the whole summer trying to defund the police, so don't give us the lecture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), the fine gentleman who served in local law enforcement, who was a sheriff, and who knows what it is like to go out there and protect his community, for sponsoring this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can try to rewrite history, but it just doesn't work. Let me just read off the Democratic-run cities that did defund the police.

Here is the game the Democrats want. All during the summer of 2020, they were saying: Defund the police. Democratic-run cities all over the country were doing so.

Now they say: Oh, but because crime went up when we defunded the police, we want Federal taxpayers to send us money to make up for the cuts we did there and spent the money elsewhere. That was the game.

If you don't believe me, here is the list:

Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;

Boston, Massachusetts, $12 million cut;

Burlington, Vermont, $1.1 million;

Denver, Colorado, $55 million;

Eureka, California, $1.2 million;

Hartford, Connecticut, $2 million;

Kansas City, Kansas, $42 million;

Los Angeles, $150 million;

Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million cut;

Minneapolis, $8 million;

New York City, $1 billion cut that summer;

Norman, Oklahoma, $865,000;

Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;

Philadelphia, $33 million;

Portland, Oregon, $16 million;

Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;

San Francisco, $120 million;

Seattle, Washington, $69 million;

Washington, D.C., $15 million--we know about the crime that has happened in this city; and of course, in the ranking member's home State of Maryland, Baltimore cut their police department $22 million. Now they are saying: Oh, make sure the Federal money keeps coming.

Look, I am not against some of these grant programs. We will look at all those. However, don't say you didn't defund the police. You did. Everyone knows you did, and you all talked about it, and you cheered it on. For the bad guys who harmed the police that summer when you were encouraging cities to cut the police, you were raising money to bail them out. Your Presidential candidate was raising money to bail them out. You can have all the revisionist history you want. The facts are the facts.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I was referring to that party that you belong to, not you personally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not said I was for defunding the ATF or the FBI. What I have said, what the American people have said clearly is they don't want these agencies weaponized against the very people they are supposed to serve. We all know about that. Think about this, though, when you think about the FBI's budget, it is like $12 billion. More than half of that budget, more than half of the personnel at the FBI are focused on intelligence and counterintelligence.

I think most Americans probably think the FBI should spend most of its

resources on going after traditional crime, organized crime, bad guys, gang activity. I think that is probably where they think it should be, but, no, they are spending half their budget, half their personnel on surveillance of Americans. I think that is a little different.

How about the ATF? We all know the example of the ATF raiding Bryan Malinowski's home. Bryan Malinowski was the highest paid official in the Little Rock, Arkansas, municipal government. He ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. He was a gun hobbyist. The ATF thinks he has done something wrong. Instead of just going and visiting him, coming to see him, picking him up at his work, taking him back to his house to execute the warrant, the search warrant, no, they had to kick in his door, predawn raid, 10 cars pull up. The first thing you see on the doorbell cam is them putting tape on the camera. Mr. Speaker, 53 seconds later, Bryan Malinowski has been shot in the head and subsequently dies.

I am for these agencies actually serving the taxpayers, not being engaged in things like that. We respect the police and want it done right. At the local level, God bless them. I have not been for defunding them. We are for honoring local police, like this good sheriff, this Member of Congress, and what they do day in and day out. That is what this resolution was about.

The other side, they want to come here and start talking about all kinds of things I didn't intend to. You heard my opening statement. You heard the gentleman's opening statement. However, the other side wants to go start attacking things.

Okay, fine. We are just setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize what a fine resolution we have here sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, and we do. We all do appreciate the work of our law enforcement men and women who put that uniform on every day, risk their lives to protect our families, our communities, all the things that we care about.

We hope this resolution is a unanimous vote. We hope both sides support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Meeks), the once and future chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, for yielding and for his leadership, for his courage, his character, his conviction, and his patriotism. How dare anyone on this floor question the patriotism of Greg Meeks or any Member on our side of the aisle.

What often happens with my Republican colleagues is they can't defend the merits of a particular situation. They can't defend the fact that Donald Trump, as candidate, promised not to start any wars, but to stop them--his words, not ours. You can't defend the fact that billions of dollars are being spent every day to drop bombs in the Middle East, but Republicans are unwilling to spend a dime to make life

more affordable for the American people. You can't defend the things that have taken place under this administration, the fact that the American people know life hasn't gotten better for them, life has gotten worse. Life has gotten more expensive, less affordable. When you can't defend your policies, you question the patriotism of Democratic Members of Congress.

There are patriots on both side of this conflict and this issue. As a matter of fact, we know there are combat veterans on the Republican side and combat veterans on the Democratic side who may share different views about the nature of this conflict. Jason Crow is a combat veteran. He opposes this reckless war of choice. Are you going to question his patriotism? Pat Ryan is a combat veteran who opposes this reckless war of choice. Do you question his patriotism? Mike Thompson, who served in Vietnam, a combat veteran, opposes this reckless war of choice. Do you question his patriotism, as well?

Why don't you just argue the merits of your position as opposed to attacking the patriotism of people on the Democratic side of the aisle, when as far as I am concerned, the most patriotic thing we can do is stand up to ensure that our men and women in uniform aren't being recklessly sent into a costly war of choice, more than 12 of whom have already lost their lives and hundreds of whom have been seriously injured.

Let's just argue the merits of Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice and stop the ad hominem attacks, which aren't a sign of strength. It is just a sign of Republican weakness in terms of your ability to persuade the American people as to why Republicans are on the right side of this unpopular war.

Now, this war of choice, this reckless and costly war, was entered into without any plan, any objective, any exit strategy, any public support, and any approval of the United States Congress. Those are five different objective reasons to have a problem about what is going on in the Middle East right now. In fact, we are just trying to help Donald Trump bring to life his own words that, as President, he wasn't going to start wars in the Middle East. He was going to stop them--Donald Trump's own words. Do you question his patriotism?

The reality is this war is costing the American people, taxpayers billions of dollars a day at the same time when Republicans are ripping healthcare away from the American people. This reckless war of choice is costing the American people billions of dollars a day at the same time when costs are going up because of the Trump tariffs, thousands of dollars a year in additional expense that everyday Americans are paying. This reckless war of choice is costing the American people billions of dollars a day when at the same time Republicans aren't willing to spend a dime to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. This reckless war of choice is costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars a day at the same period of time when grocery bills in this country are out of control. Far too many people are working hard. They are playing by the rules, but they are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, can't thrive, and can barely survive.

We are standing up for the American taxpayer in expressing support for this War Powers Resolution so we can put an end to this costly and reckless war of choice.

These are just some of the reasons why we oppose what is taking place right now. In fact, there are many who are now arguing in the public domain that as a result of what Donald Trump and Republicans have done over in the Middle East, Iran, in some instances, is stronger now than they were before. They have effective control of the Strait of Hormuz. They didn't have that before, but now they do.

As a result, Americans are paying increased gas prices that are soaring to more than $4 a gallon, the largest, in fact, monthly increase in gas prices from March to April that the country has seen in more than six decades. That is just another reason to have a problem with Donald Trump's reckless war of choice.

I ask my Republican colleagues to debate us on the merits. Enough with the ad hominem attacks. It is a sign of weakness, not strength. Take your position. We take our position.

We feel very comfortable that we are standing on the side of the American people, standing on the side of the Constitution, and standing on the side of the principle that if we are going to spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, it should actually be spent to make life more affordable for the American people, not plunge us into a reckless and costly war of choice that is actually making life more expensive for the American people in provable and tangible ways.

Vote ``yes'' on the Meeks resolution so we can stop this reckless and costly war of choice and actually get back to doing the business of the American people, making their lives better, not worse.