Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of September 14, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93), directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of September 14, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93), 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the resolution again asking for the President to ``remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the
Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.''
I have spoken at length on this floor about Iranian threats, what they have been doing to the United States of America for the last 50 years or the last 50 months, the people that they have killed, the attacks that they have levied against us.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear from my colleagues, the authors, and the cosponsors of this legislation what do they think that we are defending the United States of America from? Again, I have spoken at length about it.
I would love to know, do they see a threat? Do they see no threat?
More specifically, about the letter of this law, the letter of this bill, what is it that the sponsors want removed? That is what it says: ``Remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.''
What is it that you want removed? Do you want us to remove refueling aircraft so they cannot support Israel or Saudi Arabia?
Do you want us to remove our amphibious ready groups?
Shall we remove our MV-22 Ospreys, our Chinooks, our heavy-lift helicopters, our attack helicopters or our utility helicopters?
What about our Air Force and our naval aviation? What would you like removed there?
We have veterans from the Marine Corps, Army brothers, Army Rangers, others over here that I am guessing are here to speak about what they want removed from this space.
Do you want F-15s removed, F-15 Eagles? Do you want F-16 Falcons removed? Do you want F-35A or B removed or do you want them to remain? How about F-18 Super Hornets?
What is it that you want out of there? That is what you are asking for: ``Remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.''
What about our KC-135 Stratotankers or our Pegasus? What about our command presence? What is it that you want removed?
This is your resolution.
Do you want signals intelligence, electronic warfare, jamming maritime surveillance, ground surveillance removed? What is it that you want removed?
What about in terms of long-range precision strike capabilities? Would you like our carrier-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles removed from the space?
Do you want our air-launched precision weapons, our ground-launched precision fires, our ship-launched precision systems removed? What is it that you want removed? Do you want JDAMs removed?
What about in terms of drones? What is it that you want to remain or want removed? How about one-way attack drones, small commercial-style UAVs, larger reconnaissance-strike UAVs?
What personnel do you want removed? Because that is what this is calling for, removing all U.S. Forces.
Do you want logistics personnel removed? Intelligence? Maintenance? Medical? Communications? Headquarters command and control personnel? What do you want removed?
Do you want marines at our embassies removed?
Do you want pararescue jumpers removed?
Do you want us to remove some or all of our Patriot missile batteries from the area?
Can we destroy a missile but not destroy a launcher?
What is it that you want to take place?
Is all of this just because you do not want a naval blockade around Iran? Or is that not it?
I would ask that you be clear because I would love to hear from you exactly what forces you are demanding be removed.
To the sponsor of our bill, I would quote Representative Moulton: ``We have to acknowledge that Iran is a threat to American interests.''
To continue that quote--in fact, a brother in arms, and other brothers in arms over there, to continue that quote: ``I fought Iranians on the ground in Iraq in 2004. It was bloody. We won. And if necessary, I will fight Iran again.''
Iran was attacking us then, as you spoke about, and Iran has been attacking us at all points between that moment and now. I have spoken about it at length on this floor. I have submitted for the Record the ships they have attacked and the servicemembers that they killed long before Epic Fury.
They are continuously fighting us. They are a continuous, ongoing threat to the United States and a continuous threat to our allies. That had not stopped until a memorandum of understanding, and then they decided to resume attacks again.
So my question is, again, to the letter of this resolution: What is it that you want removed as you wrote this bill demanding?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first respond to my colleague, the ranking member, about hearings that we have had. He has heard me say this before. He lived it. We had Secretary Rubio not too long ago. The ranking member left halfway through the hearing never to return. He didn't want to hear from Secretary Rubio. Some of his members took their time to talk about Secretary Rubio's shoes. That was their opportunity to hear from the administration at the highest levels, to talk a little bit about the threat of Iran.
I could use any window of time. I could identify hundreds of attacks in just the 30 months before Epic Fury, or I could identify hundreds more in the last 30 years.
I am going to use the window of time to identify a few, since my colleague, the marine, Representative Moulton, made the comments that I quoted earlier.
In January 2020, 109 U.S. troops suffered attack and injuries after an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. That was just one attack that took place in that ongoing window of time.
In March of '23, an Iranian drone attack killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor in a strike on a coalition base in Syria.
In October of '23, Iran-backed terrorists, of course, as everybody is well aware, killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7 genocidal massacre.
In January of '24, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed 3 U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 other servicemembers in a drone attack at Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett.
In November of '24, an Iranian national and IRGC asset was charged with plotting to assassinate President Trump.
I have more. The list goes on and on. These are just some of the many attacks that I could list since Representative Moulton made the quote that I spoke about, where he is talking about his service and before Epic Fury began.
This is the continual threat, the imminent threat that Iran is and has been. They attack the United States of America every single chance they get. They attack in the Strait of Hormuz--not just the United States of America but any country going through there--every chance they get. This is just the first time that the United States of America has said enough is enough, that we will not tolerate this any longer.
That same entity that has been attacking us endlessly for all of these years will not be an entity that is allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Why? Because, at best, they now have the capability to hold the entire Gulf hostage because they have a nuclear weapon, and, at worst, they are an entity that does what they have been doing: utilize every asset at their disposal to attack the United States of America and our allies.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for a few minutes, and Ranking Member Meeks spoke for a few minutes. I don't know if we have come to that time where my colleague on the other side is happy to detail the pieces of equipment that he wants removed from the battle space, as he mentioned. As is the letter of this resolution, he wants to remove these U.S. forces from hostilities. I am hoping that now is that later time that the Representative will detail what he wants removed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My colleague said: Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. He went back and forth. The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to deny that Iran was killing Americans.
To quote my colleague, literally just now, after I just identified to him Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett killed at Tower 22 by the hand of Iran, he literally just told us: zero Americans killed. Somebody that is treating our servicemembers, their sacrifice like that, that is the best thing for Iran.
The best thing for Iran are those that have this idea that: Well, you know what? Iran has been attacking us for all these years, but if we bring that to an end, they might fight back. People that are scared of Iran fighting back when we stopped them, that is the best thing for Iran.
My colleague opened up by saying: Nobody on this floor is denying that Iran has been a threat. You don't have to look any further than immediately to your left. In one of the previous debates my colleague was discussing, he has seen no imminent threat from Iran. Ranking Member Meeks argued on this floor literally numerous times: no imminent threat from Iran.
Even though all of these Members, both Republican and Democrat, came to the floor of the House and literally took a vote to say-- Representative Moulton did not vote in favor of this, but many did--use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why? Why would that be a vote that overwhelmingly the floor of the House would vote in favor
of? It is because of the extreme, imminent threat that Iran proved themselves to be each and every day.
The dozens of times a month that Iran attacks the United States of America, month in, month out, regardless of the year, that is why everybody overwhelmingly took a vote to say: Use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to come to this floor, forget that they took a vote to prevent Iran by any means from obtaining a nuclear weapon, because it is politically convenient for them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the author of the bill that he need only look to his left to see somebody who totally disagreed. There are people that are down here denying that there is any threat posed by Iran. There is not agreement. It is something that, again, the floor of the House voted and said, use any and all means necessary to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. You have people who can't even acknowledge that they are a threat.
It was said that we can't just go out there and wage war every time a threat just pops up. Iran is not a threat that just popped up. Iran is not some poorly funded militia. It is a country of 92 million people that has been putting every bit of spare currency into creating terrorist groups, funding military, developing nuclear weapons, and continually working to control and threaten the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a new thing.
Let's bring something new into this conversation. You take a company like Lloyds of London or some other big insurance company. They, literally, are out there writing policies for years, not just since Epic Fury, but for years, for every ship going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, on their way in and on their way out.
Why are they writing these catastrophic risk insurance policies for every ship going in and every ship going out? They do so because of the threat that Iran has been demonstrating day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, every single year.
There is a forever war. President Trump is absolutely against forever wars. That is what he is ending. Iran has been waging war forever against the United States of America. The forever of this regime, they have been waging war against the United States of America. It comes to an end in only one way: us bringing it to an end. That is what the United States of America is working to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said at the end of his comments that he would like to see the day that this war comes to an end. I don't think my colleague wants to see that day because, again, my colleague brought forward a resolution today saying remove any of these forces that are engaged with Iran from the area. Those are not the exact words, but that is basically what it says.
I have yet to see the identification of which forces my colleague wants out of there. It was promised. I haven't heard it, but I don't think that they want to see that day.
The strategy, one of many that is taking place, as you probably heard Secretary Rubio state: They fire at one of our ships, we destroy one of theirs. That is a change from what has taken place. They attack the United States of America or our interests or our allies, we respond.
That is the change. Not everybody has the stomach to respond to threats. That is just the world we live in. Few are capable, and few are willing.
This administration has the stones to say that Iran has been attacking us endlessly, this comes to an end. They attack us. We destroy them. They attack us. We destroy them. My colleague would capture that as good for Iran, but the truth is it is anything but good for Iran.
What took place against Iran? Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo destroyed. There were 13,000 targets struck, 2,000 command-and-control targets defeated, 1,450 defense- and industrial-based targets destroyed, 1,500 air defense targets destroyed, 700 mine systems destroyed, 800 attack drones destroyed, 600 naval targets destroyed, 450 ballistic missile targets destroyed, 1,000 incoming attack drones intercepted, 700 ballistic missile threats intercepted. The list goes on and on. None of that is good for Iran.
Every single one of those that Iran has done, whether since Epic Fury or before, was intended to indiscriminately kill any civilian that they can, not just military targets but anybody that they can hit. Just like October 7 was to indiscriminately kill anybody that they can, not just military targets but anybody, civilian or otherwise.
That is what Iran's aim has been dozens of times a month, and that is what the United States of America is bringing to an end, whether by their willingness to leave their ways or when they are no longer capable to do so. That is the way that this ends for Iran.
It does take a strong stomach to do that. It does take individuals that are willing to acknowledge there were U.S. servicemembers that were killed before Epic Fury. If you are not recognizing that very serious and simple fact, then you are not understanding the threat of Iran and have no business dealing with it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
I don't think I am going to need 11\1/2\ minutes, but I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by answering some of my colleague's questions. When will we find the stomach in Congress to hold hearings on this war? I mentioned it already. The Committee on Foreign Affairs not too long ago held a hearing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The ranking member, as I pointed out, was walking out of the room, not wanting to stay and respond. He left midway through the hearing and didn't even want to stay to hear Secretary of State Rubio.
We have held hearings. Democrats, unfortunately, wasted a lot of their time trying to make quips about Secretary Rubio's shoes and other silly things really unbefitting members of that committee.
This resolution, in my opinion, is designed for two things. I don't believe it to be serious. I have seen the same language numerous times now. It is designed for political points. This is a resolution stating remove all of these forces from hostilities. I gave you a comprehensive list of forces, but you can't tell me one that you want removed. That is just political theater.
You are just saying you want something done, and either you haven't thought through what you actually want done or there is really nothing you want done. You just want to pretend and say it. That is political.
I think the second point of this resolution is to destroy our ability to pressure the Iranian regime by removing any offensive capabilities that we have in the region. I don't think they want an ability for us to go out there and say: We are going to hold this blockade over Iran because Iran has been attacking our ships, not just in the year 2026, but in the years 2025, 2024, and 2023, and well beyond. I have given the list on this floor numerous times of hundreds of attacks just in the 30 months before Epic Fury even took place.
Sometimes the only choice you have is you are going to hit back.
There have been a lot of questions asked on this floor. What I would like to know is: When are my Democrat colleagues going to have the stomach to hit back against an enemy that has been hitting us? Because, apparently, you don't have it.
You are unwilling to do so, and you are willing to come to the floor of the House and say things so untruthful, such as that there weren't any Americans killed prior to Epic Fury, to quote my colleague on the other side of the aisle, when just before that, I identified to my colleague three U.S. servicemembers who were killed, Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett, and a list of hundreds who were injured by Iranian attacks.
All of those things were ignored so that they could say that there was nobody killed. Why ignore those things? Why ignore something so serious as servicemembers, our brothers and sisters, our brothers-and sisters-in-arms, being killed? Why ignore that? It is because it doesn't fit the political narrative. That is a sad thing.
I have the stomach to hit back our enemies. Some of my colleagues don't. That is the question on the floor here: Do you have the stomach to hit back our enemies, or are you going to throw up the flag of surrender and say: Remove these forces.
We don't know what they are. We don't know what they are doing. We don't know the capabilities that they bring. We don't know the increased danger that it puts other forces in to remove them. We don't know anything about it, but remove them because it is politically expeditious, instead of having the stomach to go out there and seek and destroy the enemies of the United States of America, as we trained to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
