Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1689) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1689.

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

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal, mass migration in history at the hands of the Democrats. The cost to our country is immense: hospitals overrun with illegals demanding care; food pantries and homeless shelters overwhelmed; classrooms packed with non-English speaking students; rampant child, sex, and labor trafficking; hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from fentanyl overdoses; suppressed wages for working families; billions in welfare costs to support this population; and, worst of all, the introduction of the most violent criminals and criminal gangs and cartels in the world into our communities.

President Trump reversed these ruinous policies simply by enforcing our existing immigration laws. Illegal border crossings immediately plunged more

than 95 percent. The largest illegal mass migration in history is now being followed by the largest legal deportation in history, although the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct it.

One aspect of this deliberately engineered nightmare was the abuse of so-called temporary protected status. It proved Ronald Reagan's maxim that there is nothing more permanent on this Earth than a temporary government program.

Now, as its name implies, temporary protected status is supposed to provide temporary residency to legal aliens who happened to be visiting here when a disaster in their own country temporarily prevented their safe return. The Democrats turned this temporary program into an open- ended and unconditional invitation for aliens to illegally enter our country and then remain indefinitely.

Under Biden, the number of TPS beneficiaries nearly quadrupled in just 4 years as aliens illegally entered our country in order to claim this status.

The Immigration and Nationality Act not only gives the President the power to extend temporary status as Biden did, it also gives the President the power to withdraw that status when it is no longer applicable or in the interests of our country, as this President has done.

Barack Obama granted temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in this country when Haiti suffered an earthquake in 2010. For 16 years, this status has persisted in different iterations, including multiple designations, redesignations, and extensions.

During the Trump administrations, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end this temporary status for Haiti, noting that allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to reside in our country indefinitely is counter to our national interests. The vast majority of these TPS beneficiaries under Biden did not enter the country legally only to find themselves stranded by unfortunate events, rather they entered our country illegally to claim such status, encouraged, aided, and abetted by the Democrats in power.

Indeed, as the House Judiciary Committee documented in a report early last year, of the roughly 340,000 Haitian TPS holders, 312,000, 91 percent, came to the United States illegally. Their reward for committing this crime was a work permit and indefinite protection from deportation; and, yes, illegal entry into this country is a Federal crime.

Abuses like these allowed the TPS program to balloon from roughly 410,000 when Biden took office to nearly 1.5 million aliens from 16 different countries by the day he left office.

As the number of aliens with TPS skyrocketed, American communities such as Logansport, Indiana; Springfield, Illinois; and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, cried out for help. Charleroi's population of 4,000 swelled to 7,000 almost overnight as a flood of Haitian nationals took up residence.

The little town was forced to spend $400,000 for English language instructors and $1 million overall just to support the influx of students. This was all taken from the resources that would otherwise have been available to their own students.

Our Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee took testimony last year from a local official there, who told us of severe strains on housing, medical care, education, emergency services, law enforcement services, and other social services. He testified to a dramatic increase in traffic collisions and citizens of this peaceful, small town now afraid to walk the streets.

The Trump administration has heeded the cries of the American people. Since taking office, the President has moved to withdraw TPS status for foreign nationals whose conditions no longer warrant such status. In other cases, the Trump administration has determined that these TPS designations are simply not in our Nation's self-interest.

These decisions are clearly provided for under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but today my Democratic colleagues argue that we should ignore all of this, that we should return to the Biden administration's immigration policies, starting with Haitian TPS. If this bill passes, I think we can expect TPS status to be extended to the millions more who wish to exploit our country and its taxpayers.

Americans will not soon forget the image of thousands of illegal aliens from Haiti pouring across the southwest border and crowding under the bridge in Del Rio, Texas. Put simply, this bill would serve as de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens from Haiti who illegally poured across our southern border. America does not need to relive that nightmare, and that is a choice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman tells us that Haitian TPS recipients contribute to our society. Well, no doubt some do. Overall, though, nearly 53 percent of Haitian households are on at least one major welfare program. Let me repeat that so that it sinks in. More than half of Haitian households are on welfare. That means they are taking from our society, not contributing to it.

Indeed, an exhaustive study in 2017 estimated that the average illegal immigrant costs taxpayers between $87,000 and $110,000 to support over a lifetime. That is a net drain after you account for the taxes that they pay. That is a minimum $27 billion cost to American taxpayers to maintain this population.

We are told many Haitian nationals fill healthcare jobs. Well, yes, they take healthcare jobs that would otherwise be filled by Americans. If Americans aren't taking those jobs, it is because cheap, migrant labor is suppressing wages in those sectors. That is why working families lost ground under the Biden administration.

As our immigration laws are enforced, wages for working families are again beginning to rise. This bill takes us a giant step backward for Americans, and that shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the Democrats' reaction on this floor when President Trump suggested that the first responsibility of this government should be to help Americans, not illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I am now honored and pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that Haitian TPS holders all entered this country through the front door legally. That is simply untrue. Yes, about 9 percent entered legally on visas; 91 percent entered illegally.

She tells us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and, therefore, our country must accept every Haitian who can illegally enter our country and then stay indefinitely.

Haiti isn't the only dangerous country in the world. Do the Democrats seriously argue that this is grounds for TPS for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in dangerous environments? This is absurd.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tells us that we have no choice as a

matter of humaneness but to accept these refugees into our

country who are fleeing danger. This is the only refuge

that they have.

That is simply not true. Bill Melugin of FOX News was at the border in 2021 when 15,000 Haitians bum-rushed our border. He just tweeted out his recollection of the events, and let me read them to you:

``Many of them later discarded their IDs and paperwork showing they had been living and working in South American countries for years (mostly Chile) as they prepared to make fraudulent asylum claims. Their documents were all over the ground. We collected many of them.''

They are not seeking refuge in the United States because they had already found refuge in other countries. They came here to exploit our system, an exploitation that the Democrats insist on aiding, abetting, and encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close when the gentlewoman concludes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, the Democrats tell us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and I have news for them: Most of the world's population lives in dangerous places.

Do the Democrats seriously argue that Americans are obligated to admit hundreds of millions of people living in those dangerous places into the United States and then support them?

That appears to be their policy, and that certainly is what we have seen from them whenever they have taken power. It is what happens when governments become corrupt and refuse to protect innocent citizens from violent predators who roam the streets.

This should come as no surprise to Americans living in blue cities where leftist DAs refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals and prefer to release dangerous, criminal illegal aliens back onto our streets rather than turn them over to ICE to be removed from our country.

That is what comes when you allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens into our country from violent and lawless societies like Haiti.

Yes, many of these people are fleeing these conditions. Many others are creating them. Why would you allow the latter into our country to create the same violence and lawlessness?

That is why we have immigration laws: to separate out the good from the bad. There are good and bad in every community, but we need to keep the bad out. That is what the Democrats seek constantly to undermine.

This argument not only flies in the face of common sense, but it makes a mockery of the entire temporary protected status provisions of our immigration law. The law was designed to ensure that foreign nationals legally in our country, who are prevented from returning home because of temporary conditions, could remain here until those conditions have abated.

That law was never envisioned to allow aliens fleeing those conditions to seek permanent residence in America by illegally entering our country. Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats are turning this program into with this bill today.

If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have no border. If we have no border, then we have no country.

This bill makes a mockery of a program meant to provide temporary refuge for legal residents. This temporary status for Haitians has now gone on for 16 years. Ninety-one percent of these TPS holders are not legal visitors temporarily stranded in our country. Rather, they are illegal aliens who broke our laws specifically to benefit from TPS status.

The vast majority entered illegally during the Biden era of open borders. They overwhelmed local communities. Among this population came violent criminals who we can only count as they commit heinous atrocities like the one we saw in Fort Myers just 9 days ago.

When the President asked the Democrats to stand if they agreed that the first duty of the American Government is to protect the American people and not illegal aliens, not one of them stood. It shouldn't surprise us that they now bring this bill as the first step toward returning to the open-border policies of the Biden administration.

America, take heed. As this debate has once again made painfully clear, if the Democrats return to power, their first order of business will be to reopen our borders and allow the illegal mass migration into this country to continue. We can expect temporary protected status to become permanent protected status for every nationality the Democrats favor on the thinnest of pretexts. They have repeatedly made their intentions clear: to continue the ruinous open-border policies of the Biden administration.

I, for one, reject that bleak, lawless, impoverished, and violent future. I ask the House to reject it as well by rejecting this, the first in a long line of Democrat open-border bills.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1689 to designate Haiti for temporary protected status, or TPS, and I thank Representatives Pressley and Gillen for their incredible tenacity and leadership in building the bipartisan coalition needed to get this bill to the floor. This is a hopeful moment for so many across the country to take a positive step forward on immigration policy in America after so much darkness.

TPS was established with broad, bipartisan support in 1990 to provide people who are already in the United States a safe haven when their home countries are devastated by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. TPS is built on the simple idea that America should not force people back to deadly and life-threatening conditions, a principle that has guided both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.

Today, the Trump administration is dismantling this longstanding commitment to our core values, attempting to end TPS for countries where the conditions are still incredibly dangerous.

One country with which the President has seemed obsessed since his first term is Haiti. The President has called Haiti a S-hole country and cruelly attempted to end its TPS designation during his first term. Luckily, that was stopped by the lower courts, but the threat remains.

In less than 2 weeks, the ability of the Trump administration to end TPS for Haiti will be heard by the Supreme Court. Today, over 350,000 Haitians have TPS. It would be unconscionable to send them back to Haiti, an action that would lead to people's deaths. That goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

For years, Haiti has been dealing with significant political turmoil that has resulted in instability all over the country. Our own State Department has issued a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory for Haiti. They say that individuals should not travel to Haiti due to ``kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.'' The country has been in a state of emergency since March of 2024. Terminating TPS means the United States of America is forcing people to return to real and imminent harm, even death.

However, this isn't just about what is right and wrong for Haitians or for other TPS holders, Mr. Speaker. It is also about what benefits Americans. Despite all the lies and misinformation spread by this administration and its rightwing echo chamber, TPS broadly, and Haitian TPS holders specifically, are good for our communities and our economy.

TPS has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to work legally and to contribute to our economy. Haitian TPS recipients, in particular, regularly work in industries that are currently experiencing severe labor shortages, like construction and hospitality and healthcare.

In healthcare alone, Haitians are the sixth largest group of workers, making up one in five nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides. These workers keep our economy running, helping businesses that struggle to fill jobs. They pay taxes, support local businesses, and contribute billions of dollars to our economy every single year.

Each year, TPS holders from Haiti who reside in the U.S. earn $3.9 billion in total household income. They pay a total of $983.9 million in taxes, including $600.8 million in Federal taxes and $383.1 million in State and local taxes, and they hold $2.9 billion in spending power.

Many Haitian TPS holders have lived in the United States for many years. They have followed our laws, paid their taxes, and demonstrated their commitment to this country. Instead of stripping them of legal status and sending them back to dangerous conditions, we should be providing them with a path to long-term stability.

Donald Trump ran on a false promise, that he would get rid of the ``worst of the worst,'' but instead his administration has been moving forward their real goal: Ending all legal immigration to this country. Just a few days ago, the conservative CATO Institute published a report showing that Trump has cut legal immigration by 2.5 times as much as undocumented immigration since coming into office this term.

Unlawful immigration had already fallen substantially, even before Trump took office, because the Biden administration expanded the legal pathways that people had to be here with legal presence, work and contribute. However, instead of maintaining that, Trump and Stephen Miller have done everything possible to destroy all legal immigration to this country, including eliminating TPS.

H.R. 1689 provides a glimmer of hope to immigrant communities across the country, starting with Haitians. It tells them that we value their work and contributions to our country. It tells them that we won't send them to their deaths. It tells them that America still welcomes the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Gillen), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), who has been such a leader on bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, temporary protected status was created to ensure that our country is never forced to send someone back to harm's way. So long as dangerous conditions exist in someone's country of origin, TPS is meant to authorize them to remain here until that danger has passed.

Our government recognizes the real and present dangers right now in Haiti. Nonessential personnel have been evacuated from the country, and the State Department continues to tell Americans not to travel to Haiti. The government instructs people who must go to Haiti to establish ``a proof of life protocol'' with their family members, to

make funeral plans, and draft a will before they travel to the country.

Yet that same government expects us to believe that it is safer for Haitians to return to Haiti. They warn us about the imminent risk of death that comes with traveling to Haiti but have no qualms of sending 350,000 people who have been living in this country and contributing to their communities right here at home.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this month on whether the administration's termination of TPS was lawful. With the bill before us today, we can send a strong bipartisan message to the court that this body recognizes the reality that Haiti remains deeply unsafe, is in no way prepared to accept hundreds of thousands of people returning, and that the TPS designation for Haiti should remain in effect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said on this floor today. I haven't challenged every single thing, but what I want the American people to know is there is a lot of misinformation being spread about Haitian TPS holders, about TPS holders in general, and about immigrants.

Someone earlier talked about how the American people don't want immigrants in this country. That is absolutely not true. There is a record-high support for legal pathways and a general belief that immigration is good for this country. A record high 79 percent of Americans now say that immigration is a good thing for the United States, and only 30 percent of Americans actually want to see decreased levels of demand. That is in part because this administration promised to deport only the worst of the worst and then went out and kidnapped and disappeared people, incarcerates children, and is committing cruelty, including murdering U.S. citizens in the streets.

The reality is that Haitians are contributing to communities across this country: 21 percent of Haitians in healthcare, 19 percent in retail, 15 percent in education and social services, 15,000 Haitians in agriculture, and 14.5 percent of Haitians are small business owners who are generating over $1.5 billion in revenue.

We love to take all of the services that immigrants provide to this country and then establish a level of cruelty toward those same immigrants. That is not right.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the very few naturalized citizens to serve in this country, it is difficult for me to constantly listen to the anti- immigrant rhetoric that comes from the other side, the cruelty that comes from this administration, when I myself know what this process is. I have been through it.

The reality is immigrants are contributing. Haitian immigrants who are here are working in their communities. It is why there is also a record level of support for continuing Haitian TPS. The public polling on TPS for Haitians: 90 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and almost half of Republicans support that.

I am grateful to the Republicans who came forward to sign the discharge petition to bring this bill to the floor. I am grateful for any Republicans who vote today for this bill because what the American people want is to respect the contributions of immigrants across this country who are helping to build our communities. That is what Haitians are doing for us right now, and it is exactly why I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bipartisan, critically important bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 965.

I did, Mr. Speaker.

I do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion to discharge H.R. 1689 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status.

This is a commonsense policy that will save lives and benefit the American public. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort and vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, and I urge my colleagues, including the 218 Members from both sides of the aisle who signed this discharge petition, to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal support of this vote. I am immensely grateful to the Members who supported my discharge petition on both sides of the aisle and the broad, intergenerational and multiracial coalition of justice seekers throughout the country who power this movement, and my indefatigable staff, my A team, who power this work.

I am grateful for labor unions like SEIU, business industry like ABIC, faith leaders like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, civil rights groups like Black Lives Matter Grassroots, IFC, and so many more, who have joined the movement to extend TPS for Haiti.

Now, this issue, Mr. Speaker, is not the most glamorous, and I don't fault anyone at home who perhaps has never heard of this, but for those who know those three letters, TPS, they know it is life-changing.

Temporary protected status is a legal status for 1.3 million immigrants in the United States. The application process is arduous, requiring piles of paperwork, undergoing a background check, spending hundreds of dollars, and coming from one of the few countries on the list, like Haiti or Venezuela.

Technically, the deadline for maintaining Haiti TPS has already passed. That is why this vote is so urgent. That is why I filed the discharge petition, and that is why Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent have come together to take action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to extend temporary protected status for Haitians who are living in the United States and building a future that will help all of us.

Haitians like Rebecca in my district, the Massachusetts Seventh, who shared her personal story with me. Rebecca moved to the United States in 2010, not by choice, but out of necessity following the catastrophic earthquake that killed more people than any other earthquake in the history of the Western Hemisphere.

She witnessed the rise in gangs and saw her beautiful country overtaken by

political violence and instability. After surviving multiple kidnapping attempts, out of desperation Rebecca made the same decision that any of us would make in her position. She immigrated to the United States. She quickly enrolled in school to learn English. She obtained a job to support herself and her family.

Now, in 2026, thanks to her legal status under TPS, Rebecca is a certified nursing assistant. She told me that she cares for her patients with great joy, pride, and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that 20 percent of Haitians in the United States, that is one in five, work in healthcare, bridging the critical workforce gaps that define our caregiving crisis.

Rebecca is not our enemy, and she should not have to live with shame nor fear of being deported solely because of where she was born. She told me that she cannot return to Haiti, and she has no other place to go.

Mr. Speaker, Rebecca's letter ended with two words that no person wishes they would ever need to use: Please help.

Today, Congress has the ability to do just that for Rebecca in Massachusetts, for the teacher in Ohio, for the entrepreneur in Florida, and the more than 350,000 Haitian TPS holders whose lives hang in the balance.

Congress can help. Congress can do the right thing. There is nothing stopping us. Congress, right now and right here, can vote to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Gillen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. A vote against this resolution is a vote against our country's best interests, plain and simple, but don't just take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Republicans in the executive branch agree.

If you go to the State Department's website, you will see the Trump administration has designated Haiti as a ``Level 4: Do not travel (Code Red)'' because of the multilayered humanitarian crises of natural disasters, gang violence, and political instability impacting the island.

That is why TPS is warranted in this moment, and Secretary Rubio knows that. In fact, when he was in the Senate, it was Rubio who authored the very legislation we are voting on today.

It is not just him who agrees. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, has repeatedly discussed the dire conditions of Haiti and its strategic importance to our national security.

Ambassador Waltz, who was recently a Republican in this very body, believes we should be working to stabilize Haiti. He knows that the international effort to restore order in Port-au-Prince would be undermined if we deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians to the island.

This isn't just about foreign policy. Secretary Kennedy of the Department of Health and Human Services said something families across the country already know too well: America is facing a caregiver crisis. If we were to deport Haitians, we would lose even more nurses, aides, and caregivers that we desperately need. Those jobs can't be replaced by AI. The solution is clear.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to extend TPS because it is the economic thing to do. It is the strategic thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. But most of all, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question is ordered.