Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8665) to require the implementation of a strategy to encourage foreign partners to participate in the foreign military sales and direct commercial sales processes on a multinational basis, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8665.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has long been recognized by our partners and allies that the American foreign military sales system is slow, inefficient, and opaque. While the benefits outweigh the costs for many of our closest allies, it takes a real investment of personnel, time, and resources for our foreign partners to be able to successfully participate in our foreign military sales.

American-made defense systems remain the most effective, advanced, and sought-after in the world, but we need to keep expanding our base of foreign partners that purchase American defense systems.

H.R. 8665, the Allied Defense Sales Act, is a bipartisan effort to break down barriers for smaller allies and smaller countries that do not have a longstanding defense sales relationship with the United States.

This bill allows smaller countries to pool resources and participate in the foreign military sales system, expanding America's circle of equipped, interoperable allies without requiring new foreign aid spending.

I thank my colleague Mr. Zinke of Montana, the sponsor of this bill, who led the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Foreign Arms Sales Task Force and has continued the important work of ensuring America remains the partner of choice for foreign defense sales.

This legislation passed the Foreign Affairs Committee with broad bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it on the floor today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), who is the chairwoman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we do everything we can to equip our allies, big and small, with the best U.S. defense technology, ensuring that we remain interoperable with our partners in a conflict. This legislation is a key step forward to strengthening the U.S. defense industrial base and bolstering our allies' defense capabilities with the best equipment anywhere on the globe, the United States of America equipment, which is generations beyond everybody else's.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8665, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7668) to require a report on Russian and Chinese intelligence assets in Georgia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7668.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7668, the Countering China's Control of the Caucasus Act, introduced by my colleague to my right here from South Carolina, Mr. Joe Wilson.

Now, over the last few years, there have been serious questions raised about the status of democracy and the prevalence of malign influence from U.S. adversaries in the Republic of Georgia.

To this day, Russia occupies 20 percent of Georgia's sovereign territory following its 2008 invasion. Despite efforts to militarily resist Russia, concerns remain over Russia's longstanding influence in Georgia.

Equally concerning is the influence of the People's Republic of China within the country. In the last few years, this led to a Chinese consortium being selected over a U.S. company for developing a massive seaport project. Competition is good, but when it comes to critical infrastructure like this, our partners should take into consideration the risks posed by the PRC.

This bill would require an assessment of Russian and Chinese intelligence activities and influence within the Republic of Georgia and identify any areas of cooperation between Russia and China within Georgia.

The bill would also require a strategy for the future relationship between the United States and Georgia and help us assess if Georgia is serious about a path of improved relations.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, for introducing this effort, and I urge my colleagues to advance this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who I suspect will tell us something about war criminal Putin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the utmost attention to this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the United States and Georgia to move forward. Doing so requires clarity on what is happening in their country behind the scenes and a responsible strategy for future engagement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, to better inform U.S. policy toward the Republic of Georgia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6338) to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to foreign persons and foreign vessels that engage in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6338.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6338, the Stop Illegal Fishing Act, led by Chairwoman Kim and Ranking Member Meeks.

Illegal fishing is a national security problem. The Chinese Communist Party uses so-called commercial fishing fleets as an instrument of state power. These vessels violate sovereign waters, undermine local economies, and in the end, they support Beijing's broader campaign of coercion around the globe.

This is not simply about catching fish. It is about the CCP using economic pressure, maritime intimidation, and lawless behavior to expand its influence and weaken the sovereignty of other nations.

For years, China has operated in the world's worst illegal and unreported and unregulated fishing fleet. The United States cannot allow this behavior to continue without consequences.

The Stop Illegal Fishing Act gives our government additional tools to identify, expose, and hold accountable those responsible for illegal fishing and the networks that do enable it.

Just as importantly, it sends a clear message that the United States stands for free and open oceans, governed by rules, not governed by coercion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Kim and Ranking Member Meeks for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation. I absolutely urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 28, 2026.

Hon. Brian Mast,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Chairman Mast: I write regarding H.R. 6338, the Stop

Illegal Fishing Act. Provisions of this bill fall within the

Judiciary Committee's Rule X jurisdiction, and I appreciate

that you consulted with us on those provisions. The Judiciary

Committee agrees that it shall be discharged from further

consideration of the bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

forgoing further consideration of this measure does not in

any way alter the Committee's jurisdiction or waive any

future jurisdictional claim over these provisions or their

subject matter. We also reserve the right to seek appointment

of an appropriate number of conferees in the event of a

conference with the Senate involving this measure or similar

legislation.

I ask that you please insert this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of this measure on

the House floor. I appreciate the cooperative manner in which

our committees have worked on this matter, and I look forward

to working collaboratively in the future on matters of shared

jurisdiction. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan,

Chairman.

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the United States will not stand by while China uses economic coercion as an intimidation tactic.

This bill is an important reminder to show our allies and our partners in the Indo-Pacific that we are the United States of America. We do not back down.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5248) to ensure the alignment of economic and foreign policies, to position the Department of State to reflect that economic security is national security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5248.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), the chairwoman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of H.R. 5248, and 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 include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from Mr. Hoyer, and I want to touch on them for a moment.

He made the point that military spending from Europe has surged 67 percent and aid from Europe has surged 59 percent. I am exceptionally glad to see that take place.

However, let's make sure that we give credit where credit is due. There is a reason that military spending in Europe didn't surge by 67 percent in 2024 or 2023. There is a reason that aid didn't surge 59 percent in 2022.

President Trump forced Europe to raise the spending. He said that the burden is going to be on you, Europe, to carry your weight.

In addition, he did something. He demanded something from Europe: that they defend their own backyard.

We should all be praising President Trump for getting them to carry the burden of the war going on in the European backyard. I am glad to see them spend it, and I hope they spend 10 times more, but let's give the credit where it is due.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I think that is the pattern, 30 seconds.

You are almost there.

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to yield to the gentleman a few moments, and I absolutely affirm what he said. I agree with what the gentleman said, and I think Secretary Rubio has affirmed this no less. Secretary Rubio said: We are not neutral, a neutral arbiter in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We believe in Ukraine. We want Ukraine to win. We are not neutral in this.

Absolutely, they see the threat. Europe sees the threat, and we are glad that they are now stepping up in a much more substantial way.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mackenzie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee that he said that we should give Ukraine--they just want a little bit of help. The United States of America, to this moment, is giving them far more than just a little bit of help, and that should not be ignored.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to just begin with the final comments of the ranking member. He said that it is a chance to prove you stand with Ukraine.

We could do absolutely nothing in this Chamber today, and all of us would still be standing with Ukraine. We have been standing with Ukraine since the onset of this war, which began under President Joe Biden. We have been standing with Ukraine.

A vote for this bill doesn't prove that you are pro-Ukraine. I believe that analysis of this bill proves that you didn't take a look very well about how it does affect citizens of the United States of America.

As Secretary Rubio said and as I mentioned already, we are not a neutral arbiter in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We have sent tens of billions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war. We continue to share intelligence to this very moment. We continue to send arms. We have levied countless sanctions against Russia that are still in place today.

I could tell you that I personally cheer every single time Ukraine hits a Russian target.

This bill is not about helping Ukraine defeat Russia. This bill is about trying to stop President Trump and trying to tie his hands and limit his ability to negotiate.

President Trump has successfully ended longstanding conflicts around the globe. In just the last 18 months, he has ended the October 7 war between Israel and Hamas; the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which had been a 30-year-long conflict; between Egypt and Ethiopia, a longstanding diplomatic crisis that risked all-out war; between Pakistan and India, who were on the verge of all-out war, which could have turned nuclear if not stopped; war between the DRC and Rwanda; between Kosovo and Serbia; and between Cambodia and Thailand.

President Trump has been working on conflicts successfully across the globe. Those are just some of the successes that he has been able to accomplish in the last 18 months, despite

Democrats really fighting him every step of the way.

I think the reality is that in order to end this war, we have to bring Russia to the table. I think we all know that.

I personally would much rather prefer that our coalition--and it is a strong coalition that includes the United States of America--bring Vladimir Putin to his knees, but as long as Vladimir Putin has nukes, the coalition is not going to do that.

Why? Let's explain it very clearly. The only reason that there is not more being done militarily in response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is because they have nuclear weapons. The only reason that there is not a United States of America bunker buster through the ceiling of the Kremlin is because Russia has nukes. It is the only reason that Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--take your pick--don't have heavy armor rolling all the way to Siberia: It is because Russia has nukes.

In fact, this is why Iran absolutely should not have a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been apparently forgotten by my colleagues. We do not want to have to negotiate with a terrorist state that proves to be an imminent threat to the United States of America every single day and have them be armed with a nuclear weapon.

That is why I find it so interesting that Democrats want to pull out all the stops against Russia while doing absolutely nothing to stop Iran, which, in the 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning, attacked the United States of America over 350 times. That, to me, is amazing.

What this bill would do is tie the President's hands. I have mentioned that already. It would prevent him from negotiating an end to the war. The President has tried his best to get my colleagues to read between the lines about how they would be affecting the United States of America domestically by pushing this policy. He laid it out yesterday in his Statement of Administration Policy, which speaks very specifically about the far-reaching provisions, like the sanctions on SWIFT and the imposition of mandatory sanctions without the appropriate waivers for their limits.

To bring this back domestically and what that memo was about in part is this: Sanctions on this bill would be a kill switch on American nuclear power. Under President Trump, we are finally weaning off nuclear fuel, but that does take time. The truth is, Russia has a stronghold on global enriched uranium supplies, and Russian suppliers are intertwined in our nuclear energy supply chain as well as that of Europe's.

Recently, Russia accounted for nearly 30 percent of enriched uranium purchased by United States reactor operators, underscoring both the continued dependence on foreign-controlled enrichment capacity and the need for an orderly transition to secure domestic supply chains. That number is now lower than it was, thanks to President Trump, but the sanctions in this bill would strain an already vulnerable U.S. nuclear supply chain overnight.

These sanctions don't just impact us here at home, as I mentioned already. They would have devastating consequences to European energy. As Europe realized through oil and gas, they are highly dependent on Russia. They have been working to wean themselves off, which President Trump warned them about in his 45 administration, saying why is the United States of America paying all this time, troops, and treasure to protect Europe through NATO when they are so intertwined with Russia, and they are highly dependent in Europe on Russian enriched uranium.

In addition--this has been mentioned numerous times--the bill is filled with outdated measures and basic errors. To give a few of those examples that have already been mentioned, the bill includes funding for Ukraine security assistance that was already passed as a part of this year's NDAA. In fact, the bill would provide $100 million less per year than what was passed in the NDAA. That is a pretty important oversight.

It has been mentioned that the bill calls for 2 percent of GDP military spending from NATO. It was already congratulated by some of my colleagues that the President has worked to make sure that NATO spends 5 percent of their GDP in terms of military spending, and he has been wildly successful in making sure that that takes place.

This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill to attack President Trump that was crafted basically a year and a half ago, while he was actively engaged in the high-stakes negotiation to end this war since it started.

I do believe that people on both sides of this bill want to help Ukraine, but supporting this bill does not somehow say you are stepping away from Ukraine or that you all of a sudden stand beside them.

Again, we could do nothing here today, and the status quo that we have been supporting Ukraine since the onset of this war would continue. I believe that this is about a cudgel to fight against President Trump and tie his hands, as I have said already.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 84 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Tlaib of Michigan, or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of June 3, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon, 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 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 just listened to my colleague, Representative Tlaib, speak for about 6 minutes, trying to convince us that Israeli action in Lebanon is about ethnic cleansing. Not once in the 6 minutes did my colleague mention Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that Israel is going in there and killing. In 6 minutes of rambling on, not one mention of Hezbollah, not one mention of the 1,729 rockets fired by Hezbollah into northern Israel since April 7, not one mention of the 1,680 UAVs and drones sent into Israel since April 7, not one mention of the 283 Israelis injured or the 15 killed by Hezbollah since April 7. She wants you to believe that it is about ethnic cleansing and not fighting Hezbollah. Okay.

Let's talk about her actual policy. Her actual policy says this: Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Lebanon. Pretty straightforward.

Let me let my colleague know, Representative Tlaib, that the United States is not at war in Lebanon. The United States is not engaged in hostilities in Lebanon. I don't know how else I can say it. This resolution, it is reckless, and it is unserious.

You are asking to remove U.S. troops in a country where we are not in conflict. Israel is killing terrorists. I just listed off all the attacks that have gone on just since early April, but we are not in conflict there.

You are saying we can't keep any military there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to engage in a colloquy.

Can we leave no military there, Representative Tlaib?

Prove it.

Representative Tlaib, I am going to take back my time here, but I will give you some more time to debate. As you can see, I will definitely give you the time. It is tough to understand you when you are yelling.

To my colleague's point--please stay standing because I will yield you more time. It just has to be a back-and-forth.

Apparently, they are not terrorists. Apparently, everybody that Israel was killing in Lebanon, they weren't terrorists, according to my colleague over here. It wasn't terrorists that were firing 1,729 rockets there, 1,680 UAVs, injuring 283, killing 15. Apparently, it wasn't terrorists that were doing that.

Ms. Tlaib, I yield you time again. Will you answer my question: Can we leave no military there?

Can we leave the military there?

I would love to talk about your policies.

To get back to your policy, ``remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon,'' can we leave no U.S. forces there? Does that mean we can't leave any marines in the embassy?

It says ``remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon.'' I am just reading what you wrote.

That is not what this says.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time at this point.

We didn't get an answer, apparently, as to if we can--because I am reading the gentlewoman's legislation here, ``remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon.'' That is just an example of how reckless her legislation is.

It doesn't say anything about, yeah, you can keep the marines that are in the embassy, as an example. That is a pretty big oversight. It doesn't say anything about whether we can keep United States Armed Forces that are on training missions with the LAF--again, pretty big oversight.

Of course, my colleague doesn't want to talk about the fact that the terrorists that Israel is killing there, that they do also use human shields. This is a well-known thing.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I will say that a vote for this resolution is a vote to support Iran, which I think I have to remind some of my Democrat colleagues is a bad thing. Supporting Iran is a bad thing. I see no acknowledgment over there.

They are actually--my colleagues over here that would vote for this, they are serving as proxies for Hezbollah by bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, again, we are not at war in Lebanon. There are no combat forces to remove. There is nothing further to say. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and not be a proxy for Hezbollah.

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

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

I hope my colleague is not going to leave. I would love to speak to you as well. I have a serious question for you if you want to approach a mike.

The question is for you. I mean, if you need other people to answer for you, then that is what it is.

It is my time.

My understanding is you want to help Lebanon civilians.

I reclaim my time.

I will yield back to you in a moment. I am reclaiming.

So the United States Armed Forces that are training the LAF who are fighting Hezbollah, fighting Hezbollah who is killing children there, killing civilians, would you like to see them stay? And I yield you some time.

If you will answer my question, I will give you time.

I will reclaim my time.

So they want to go back. They don't want to talk about Hezbollah. Still yet no mention of Hezbollah from our colleagues over there. They don't want us to talk about the support the United States Armed Forces are giving to the LAF to combat Hezbollah because they are not acknowledging them, and apparently, they don't want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it is Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders. I gave them the count of rockets, UAVs, casualties, drones; I gave them the count. No mention of it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

May I inquire as to how much longer this is going to take? We watched this video on C-SPAN already. Can I just inquire what is taking so long?

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

Very good. I would also inquire: Can Representative Miller still speak, or not?

Very good.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deliver a message from Representative Miller of Ohio:

``Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record an article titled: ``Rashida Tlaib member of secret Facebook group where Hamas terrorists glorified.''

Very good.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record the transcript of the Congresswoman from Michigan, the transcript of H. Res. 845, which notes that she is the only one calling for genocide. She was reprimanded bipartisanly by the House of Representatives.

Censured for her comments.

I am sorry. I didn't hear you, Mr. Speaker.

The objection--

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can there be an objection--

Can there be an objection to the Record being stricken from the Record?

This is H. Res. 845, which was a bipartisan vote to censure the Representative for her genocidal comments, so can we--

So something in the Record already cannot be placed into the Record because this was a vote, bipartisan vote.

Interesting. I learned something new today. All right.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to submit for the Record another article: Watchdog release--titled--something titled--an article titled: ``Watchdog releases scathing report on Tlaib's alleged ties to terrorist groups, warning of potential risks.''

Very good.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the Rules Committee ranking member speak, as he is walking away right now, and here is something that he said. I think it is important for the American people to hear: ``Hard-earned money in the service of war crimes'' were his words.

So we are debating right now whether to have our Armed Forces removed from Lebanon. The gentleman is implying that our Armed Forces who are there are engaged in war crimes.

That is impugning our Armed Forces. That is despicable, and it is despicable to say, especially in the light of the fact that, what, our marines who are in the embassy are the ones who are in the service of war crimes? I see that he walked off. He doesn't want to listen to an analysis of his own comments.

The marines in the embassy are engaged in war crimes? Is that what he is saying today?

Those training the Lebanese Armed Forces are engaged in war crimes?

I don't think he wants to defend those comments because he walked off.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, I would just let everybody know, again, there has been no mention of Hezbollah, no mention at all from this side about Hezbollah, the rockets they are firing into Israel, the UAVs, the casualties, or all the Americans that Hezbollah has killed in the past--no mention of either.

I am curious, Mr. Speaker, if the next speaker over there will have any mention of Hezbollah. I will be interested to hear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have had another speaker on the left and still no mention of Hezbollah.

I have a very serious question. This is serious. I understand my colleagues oppose Israel killing Hezbollah terrorists. Do they also oppose the Lebanese Armed Forces killing Hezbollah terrorists? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may want to stick around. I am going to reference her words.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic staffer who was interjecting themselves into the debate here was confusing Representative Fine with Representative Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I am a Republican. I am not offended by them swearing. It is okay. I can handle it. I can handle nasty looks, too.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am going to reference the words of my colleague just now. She said that no one on our side supports terrorist organizations; for us to say so is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, to have an entire debate about Lebanon and removing U.S. Forces from Lebanon that aren't there without a single mention of the word Hezbollah, who is actively trying to kill anybody that they can, that is a support for a terrorist organization.

For our colleagues, I will bring Iran into this more specifically beyond just Hezbollah being a proxy of Iran, for our colleagues to go out there and say day after day that there is no imminent threat from Iran when Iran is absolutely--and acknowledged by everybody bipartisanly--the largest state sponsor of terror, that is a support for the largest state sponsor of terror.

For our colleagues to go out there and pretend as though we haven't been attacked 350 times in the 30 months prior to Epic Fury even beginning, for them to pretend that we were not being attacked, not being struck by Iran, that is a support for terrorists.

Every single time that my colleagues on the other side deny, turn their backs to the United States of America getting hit by the terrorists of Iran or their proxies like Hezbollah or others, they are supporting a terrorist organization.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I will just reference the remarks of my colleague, examine what was said.

She said that Israel is going scorched earth. I would just tell my colleague that if Israel--and by the way, this is after a little while ago she was saying they are needing the United States of America's intelligence. The context of this is important. If Israel was going scorched earth on them, they wouldn't need American intelligence for targeting.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, again, is beyond reckless and beyond untruthful. The entire arguments that we were listening to of accusing America of participating in a genocide that is not existing, it is Israel going into Lebanon killing Hezbollah terrorists.

I wish they had kept their map up because they showed a large map of all this territory where Israel had gone on the offensive, and they said that they had killed 4,000 people.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if Israel had gone scorched-earth on them, you would have way more than 4,000 dead in all that territory, but what was done was precise strikes against terrorists targeting Israel, Americans, and anybody else whom they could reach out and touch, and they are being killed for that.

This resolution impugns our military. This resolution impugns the patriotism of the U.S. military by saying that they are participating in a war that they are not and by saying that they are participating in a genocide where they are not.

This resolution is certainly shameful in that way, but, again, it is very reckless because it would demand that we remove forces from places like our embassy in Lebanon, remove all forces from Lebanon that would mean removing our Marines from the embassy in Lebanon which, again, just shows how reckless and shameful and how ill thought-out this resolution is.

Mr. Speaker, while it has been an exciting evening with all of these words being taken down and everything else going on, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be made in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 86

in the House if called up by the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or its designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion, except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of May 20, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) 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 materials on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me what exactly my colleagues are trying to do. We were on this merry-go-round last week, and last week my colleagues across the aisle here voted to say let's remove all U.S. forces from any hostilities with Iran, while at the same time they acknowledged the imminent threat that Iran poses against us. They said Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and obtain a nuclear weapon to do so, as well.

They acknowledge all of these things, but then they say let's be a United States of America that does not respond to threats against the United States of America. I don't understand it. I look forward to hearing the explanation from my colleagues, although it will be unexplainable.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, my colleague wants to make the argument about an imminent threat. I am glad he wants to have that debate. Last week, my colleague voted, as I outlined already, to say literally that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and, if obtained, a nuclear weapon.

I would ask my colleague across the aisle: You voted to say Iran was an imminent threat. How do you define an imminent threat? You voted for it last week.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I see the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee running off. I don't think he wants to stay to answer questions.

Good, please stay.

Number one, imminence matters. My colleagues--this being one of them--voted last week to say--let me read it again here: Iran wants to attack the United States, our allies, with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon. That, to me, is the definition of ``imminence.''

I see him running off. I guess he doesn't want to explain whether that is a vote to say they are an imminent threat. I am happy to yield him a couple of seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I didn't say ``evil.''

I didn't say ``evil.'' Did I say ``evil''? I agree they are evil, but I didn't say that. Let's not twist the words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield more time because I think he is going to run out.

I didn't say ``evil.'' You are still saying things I didn't say. I read what you voted for last week: Iran wants to attack the United States--``wants to attack'' means imminent--and our allies with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon.

I will give you a moment of time in a second.

He voted to say any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We could go on and on about these things.

Are they an imminent threat?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

They are certainly not.

What I would give you is this, to present, again, imminence of them. I just gave you some examples. We will say just before this began in February, they attacked a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that, they attacked--IRGC, I am talking about when I say ``they.'' They attacked another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that--I am in December now--attacked another one. Just before that, IRGC attacked one in the Marshall Islands. Just before that, IRGC attacked an MSC ship and raided with a helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. I have pages and pages of these. It is the definition of ``imminent.''

As you know, before that, they killed three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan. It is imminent.

They attacked us literally just before our operations began. I gave you one example. To me, being a servicemember, if I see a foxhole and one or two enemies in that foxhole with the barrel of a .50-cal pointed at me, just because they don't have two fingers on the trigger playing with that trigger doesn't mean that it is not an imminent threat. If they are aiming it at me, that is an imminent threat. They are aiming it at us.

Thankfully, we have had a cease-fire since, I want to say the date was April 7, April 8. We are not in hostilities. We are out there with almost the exact same number of forces that we continually keep in the region.

It brings me to another question I would love to ask you as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, because the bill literally calls for the removal of U.S. forces from the region, other than those that ``may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.'' That is what the bill says you are voting on today--probably, you will vote for it. I would love to know which military assets you would like to remove.

We are paused. We are in a cease-fire.

That is what a cease-fire is. It is an end to that.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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, there is still an argument from my colleagues over there about imminent threat, imminent threat, whether it is an imminent threat. I will just give them one other important piece of information they might want for the debate that was just so passionately spoken about.

Before Epic Fury began, 30 months--the 30 months within, not 30 months just beyond that--30 months within Epic Fury, that time before it, there were 350 attacks against the United States of America. That is not just imminent. That is continuous.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how my colleagues on the other side to not equate continuous with imminence. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have probably, I don't know, maybe 100 people up in the gallery behind us. I am going to apologize to the people behind us. They came here to the Capitol of the United States of America to hear debate, but they witnessed my colleagues over here don't really want to debate.

I am always willing to give them time if they actually want to have a debate, argue facts, talk about things, but they rarely--as you all witnessed, they don't want to take my time to answer questions.

The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had a little back and forth with me for a little while. I appreciated it. I asked him very direct questions. Does continuous attacks

against the United States of America equal an imminent threat. They just gloss by that as though they have nothing to do with the national security of the United States of America. They didn't want to talk about it.

You are owed more than that. This is what debate is. I constantly offer them the time. They don't want to answer the questions. It is because this is all political for them. This is political. That is why they don't want to answer why they voted not too long ago to say use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. They all over there voted for that.

None of them can explain today why they don't want to use any and all means necessary, but before, that was the case. It is not convenient. It is not politically convenient for them to do that.

My colleagues over here said it is a war of choice. Yes, it is a choice. As Americans, we make a choice. If somebody hits us day after day, week after week, month after month, do we just keep getting hit, or do we hit back? That is a choice.

I can tell you, as an American servicemember, an American fighter, if somebody hits me, kills my people, I am going to hit them back.

Yes, I hate high energy prices, but not as much as I hate people who kill Americans. I hate them, but not as much as I hate those that kill my people.

Iran kills our people consistently, attacks our people consistently, and wants to seek the means to do that with a nuclear weapon. They all agreed on it prior to President Trump doing something about it. They don't want to have a debate about that.

No matter how it comes down in the end, they don't want to actually talk about the real things that are going on. They don't want to talk about the troop levels over there that are basically the same thing that they were before this conflict even began. These are things they don't like to discuss.

Again, you weren't all here in the audience a week ago when we were debating this before, but as I mentioned earlier, they all voted to say the ways that Iran is a nuclear threat: They want to attack the United States of America. They want to attack us with ballistic missiles, with terrorist proxies. They want to obtain a nuclear weapon and use that against us.

They all voted to say that a week ago.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep that in mind.

They all voted to say that, that this is the way that Iran is a nuclear--that they are an imminent threat. They won't use the words ``imminent threat,'' though, because to use the words ``imminent threat'' has some specific legal connotation to it. They know it is bad for them. They don't want to do it. It is political, too political.

It would be like I have a cough, a fever, cold sweats, but I am unwilling to say that I have the flu. They are not willing to say it. They are not willing to acknowledge what is.

People in the audience, people watching, you are owed more than that out of those who are debating national security.

I mentioned already that before Operation Epic Fury began, in the 30 months prior to it beginning: 350 attacks in 30 months. They are not willing to say that that is ``imminent.''

Examples include U.S.-flagged tankers, and Iranian forces seize Greek-flagged tanker. There was the tanker Pacific Zircon, off the coast of Oman. Iranian Navy captures Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iranian IRGC seizes Panamanian tanker. IRGC seize Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. The list goes on and on, week in and week out. There was an American tanker, a tanker from another country, putting U.S. sailors on their knees on a U.S. vessel, if everybody remembers that.

I am an American. I don't believe in getting hit and walking away and pretending as though it didn't happen. I would like to think that all Americans were the same way, but I know that is not the case. There are very few that serve in the United States military, and probably even less that are capable of it, because not everybody reacts to conflict in the same way or has the same desire to deal with it.

My colleagues over here who are voting for this are the kind of Americans that get hit and pretend as though it never happened.

If you want America to get hit and pretend as though it never happened, then vote with my colleagues over there. If you want us to keep doing something about it, protecting our servicemembers in the region and our assets in the region, then vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which is pretty simple. It prohibits funds from being used to enforce veterans health directive 1315.

Why is that? Why would we want to prohibit funds from doing this?

Just to make this clear, it doesn't change Federal law. It doesn't require the VA to prescribe any cannabis treatment or any other treatment like that. It simply says that the Department of Veterans Affairs should not prohibit doctors from discussing or helping veterans navigate legal State-approved cannabis programs if that is something that the veteran is considering.

Now, whether anybody likes it or not, whether they smoke it, they roll it, they chew it, or they sniff it, whatever, anything they do with cannabis or don't do with cannabis, these are programs that exist in a lot of States.

If former members of the military have doctors that they are seeing inside of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and if there is a treatment option that they want to be considered for, they want to know if it is right for them, if it is not right for them, if it doesn't fit in good with other prescriptions that they have, you name it, Mr. Chair, if they want to discuss it, then they have to be able to discuss it with their doctor. The most important person for them to discuss it with is their doctor.

If they are getting their primary care from the VA and they can't have that discussion, then that is a problem. Whether the doctor says it is good or bad, that is up to the doctor to decide, but they have to be able to have that conversation.

I tell people often that I was injured in Afghanistan. I lost two legs and a finger there. When I woke up in the hospital, I woke up on antidepressants, antiinflammatories, heavy sleep sedatives, a host of narcotic pain killers from a Dilaudid drip, to oral morphines, to epidurals, you name it, Mr. Chair, and I weaned myself off of those things very quickly.

That is not the case for all of my brothers and sisters. A lot of these narcotics that people are on and get placed on, especially after injuries, are serious and very difficult to get off of and leave long- term, lasting effects on them.

There has to be an ability, again, for people inside the system to have that conversation with their doctor about whether that is right, that path of what I woke up on, having really no say-so about it, or something else is right for them, because they read something about it, saw something about it, heard something from one of their friends, you name it, Mr. Chair, they have to have that conversation with their doctor.

Again, I encourage support for amendment No. 23, prohibit funds from being used to enforce veterans health directive 1315 so that why?

So that veterans can speak to their doctor about whether cannabis is or is not a good medical treatment program for them. Just let them have the option to talk.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 27, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 75) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a smile on my face. I am laughing because in the whole 10 minutes that I just listened to my colleague speak, there was not one mention of what this bill actually does or says. It is probably really convenient to not reference anything that this bill says.

I will tell you why it is really convenient for my colleague across the aisle. He said: We could never show any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat. He said it numerous times and said it other days that we were going through the same song and dance. So why does he not want to mention the bill? It is because him voting for this bill that he is going to vote for--he is going to vote ``yes'' on this bill--what does the bill say right in its text? It outlines the imminent threat that Iran is. Thank you to the author of this bill for the bill that you are going to vote for. Let me quote the bill since maybe you didn't read it. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States.'' That is one of many.

``The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and

pursuit of a nuclear weapon.'' There are many more whereas clauses in this.

It literally states the imminent threat that they are. So I look forward to you voting ``yes'' on the imminent threat that Iran is, my colleagues over there, and just proving to yourselves and proving to everybody just how wrong you are, how you probably didn't read this bill, and how you have no interest in actually speaking the truth about what it says.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell us if Iran is an imminent threat.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) more time.

Is that an imminent threat?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) again for the purpose of a colloquy.

Absolutely. I am happy to let you continue the dialogue if you want. I am not going to cut you off.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman say that because Iran is an imminent threat against us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Representative Gottheimer dialoguing with me for a moment. I will give another quote that he offered. ``Iran's sole objective is to wreak havoc, create violence, cause instability, and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life.'' That is a quote from my colleague over there. I agree with everything that he said.

That is an outline of an imminent threat, as well as the ``whereas'' things that were added into this bill. It is an outline, an indictment of an imminent threat. Iran is an imminent threat against us. Iran is an imminent threat.

The imminent threat that has been going on against us, I will outline some more of it. And this relates to the Strait of Hormuz, not because of the combat actions that have taken place, but just because Iran is an imminent threat in what they have been doing. They captured sailors and two boats. Four patrol boats from Iran's IRGC attacked the USS Nitze, and the USNS Invincible was forced to change course because IRGC fast-attack crafts tried to run into it.

These are all separate incidents.

IRGC vessel attacks USS Thunderbolt in Persian Gulf.

Unarmed Iranian drone flies to USS Nimitz as fighter jets landing at night.

IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on two Saudi, one UAE, one Norwegian-registered ship, all harbored in UAE. These are going back years.

IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on Japanese ship and Norwegian-owned ships transiting the Gulf of Oman. This is, again, just going back in history.

IRGC personnel deploy surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. unmanned aircraft operating over international waters.

IRGC Navy seize British-flagged and Swedish-owned Stena Impero tanker while it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran attempts to stop British tanker British Heritage, and six U.S. Navy ships attacked by Iranian ships.

IRGC Navy forcibly board and detain Hong Kong-flagged SC Taipei, an oil tanker, in international waters.

Eleven IRGC Navy small boats attack five U.S. Navy vessels conducting routine exercises.

I have pages of these--I can go on--year after year after year.

I have at least one colleague over here who is willing to acknowledge the imminent threat that they are, what it is that they have been doing, longstanding, with the Strait of Hormuz.

Did the gentleman want to continue the conversation?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I am glad you asked.

My opinion is that, yes, both by the content of what it is that the administration has told me in whether it is full House classified briefings with the Secretary of War, the Secretary of State, General Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe; whether it is in expanded Gang of Eight meetings that Ranking Member Meeks and myself have been a part of, numerous of those; or other briefings that we have had.

I don't know how many briefings it is that you have had as a part of the Intelligence Committee, but I am tracking at least 30 separate briefings, and absolutely, I am satisfied with the content of which I am given.

On any given day, would I love to have more information that they have within a tactical operations center--a TOC, as we call it in the military--of what is going on? I would love to still be an operator inside of a TOC, watching ISR footage of exactly everything that is going on, but that is not the latitude that we have, to sit inside of those TOCs and observe everything that is going on, but I am satisfied.

We all are, 30--at least 30 separate briefs.

Thank you.

I heard you say it.

I appreciate the colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the ranking member is ready to close.

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

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

I am going to respond to the trove of ridiculous things that I have heard said on this floor.

Speaking generally about life, I know that there are people out there that when they get hit, they curl up, they cry, and they don't deal with the situation. That is how some people deal with conflict.

I can't personally say that I have known people that get hit, and they deny that it happened at all. That is literally what we have going on here.

As my colleague says over and over, there is no imminent threat that is going on. The author of this bill acknowledged the imminent threat, wrote word after word, paragraph after paragraph in the very thing that my colleagues over there will vote ``yes'' on to outline specifically the imminent threat that Iran is. He wanted it to be known the imminent threat that Iran is, but my colleagues are denying the imminent threat. They are denying that we have got hit.

They say we started this war. To quote my colleague right now, Ranking Member Meeks, he said we started this war. That is a denial of every single time the United States of America has been hit. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us at Tower 22 and killed three Americans. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us in Iraq and Syria. It is a denial of the times that they fired at our ships that were passing through the straits and other places causing some of our jets to fall off the decks of our carriers. It is a denial to say we started this war, not all of those things that Iran did started this war.

I literally just read off a laundry list of things that Iran has done to us and to our allies over the years, attack after attack after attack, but according to my colleague, we started this war. Again, it is like getting hit in the face, and it is like no, no, that didn't happen, nobody hit me in the face. Black eye? No black eye. It didn't happen to me. I ran into a wall. That is like what we are living through right now.

I am going to give you some more of the things that they have done, and it is important because my colleague for the first time I have heard him define what ``imminent'' actually means to him. He said this is what imminent means to me, that they will utilize against us soon, was what was said--utilize against us soon.

So I just listed off a whole bunch of things, a whole bunch of attacks that were done to us immediately preceding our combat operations in Iran. That to me equals imminent. If they just did it, that means they would continue to do it soon.

But if we go back even further than that, we will list some more. MV Asphalt Princess, another ship, a tanker traveling from UAE to Oman, was attacked by Iran. They are our allies. An Iranian-flagged tanker seized two Greek tankers, Delta Poseidon and Prudent Warrior, in the Persian Gulf. The tanker Pacific Zircon was hit by an Iranian drone off the coast. Iran's navy captured a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iran's IRGC seized the Panamanian-flagged Niovi oil tanker.

The list goes on and on just year after year. I can list off dozens of these imminent what they have been doing in the Strait of Hormuz going on year after year, imminent. But, again my colleagues across the aisle, it is like they are getting hit in the face, and they are saying: No, nobody hit me. They are saying that because they want to talk a big game, but they are too scared to actually deal with somebody hitting them in the face. That is true about life.

Some people don't have the stomach to be soldiers. Some people have the stomach, but they are just not capable of doing it. Not everybody is built to do the same things.

I want to cover some of the other things that were said. My colleague, Ranking Member Meeks, said numerous times that the new leader of Iran is more extreme. That is certainly an acknowledgment of the extremist nature of the previous leader of Iran. Very extreme.

Having done all of those things that I just listed off to our allies and to the United States of America, that is how extreme the previous leader was, now the new one is more extreme. The previous one was absolutely an imminent threat, absolutely making this a legal military operation, though they continue to say it wasn't some legal operation, that it was a war of choice.

My colleague said it was a war of choice--I counted at least three times--in his remarks. Absolutely, it is a choice. If somebody hits me in the face like my colleagues are denying is happening to America, it is a choice whether we hit them back. My colleagues over there would prefer to choose that, when somebody hits America in the face, we say: No, nothing happened. I walked into a wall. Nothing to see here--and not hit them back.

That is not the United States of America.

It is a choice whether we hit back. Strong people choose to hit back. Strong countries choose to hit back.

Weak people, weak countries, they don't hit back.

Let's go over some of the other things that were said. They regained access to missile sites. It was reported that Iran regained access to missile sites. Absolutely. You know what, they regained access probably 10 minutes after those sites were hit. That doesn't mean that they are operational. That doesn't mean that they can go into a cache where they held weapons and pull the weapons out of that cache and start using them. It doesn't mean that they can take a mobile platform that they could access before we hit it and then go access it again 10 minutes later and utilize it. Sure, they have access to it. That doesn't mean that it is something that can be used.

Our colleagues want you to believe that they had this access and nothing is being done. That is absolutely irresponsible.

I went over how my colleagues talked about how this war caused the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. No, Iran has been closing the Strait of Hormuz year after year, decade after decade, and I have far more pages of what I could go over of all the attacks that they have been conducting through the strait and other places.

It was said numerous times--again, I counted at least three times-- ``never in America's national interest.'' That is the colleague of Ranking Member Meeks over there, ``never in America's national interest.''

If it was never in America's national interest, why did my colleague literally vote to say the United States of America should ``use any and all means''--that is a quote, direct quote, from the bill--to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? That is what President Trump is doing, using any and all means to make sure that that doesn't happen.

In this breath, he says it was never in America's national interest, but before, I guess it was. I am not sure how before it was okay, but now it is never. It doesn't quite add up to me.

He said it is not about theatrics. If you voted previously to say use any and all means necessary against Iran, but now you say it is never in America's national interest, it is 100 percent about theatrics. That is what it is.

That is what this whole show is about for my colleagues over there. It is theatrics because you can't say it was never in America's national interest and just before that say, yes, I voted to say use any and all means necessary. They don't add up. One thing doesn't equal the other. It is all about theatrics.

On the words ``imminent threat,'' he said the words ``imminent threat'' are not in there. Yes, the words ``imminent threat'' are not directly in there. That is correct, but again, my colleague did state the ways that Iran is an imminent threat, my colleague who authored the legislation that they intend to vote ``yes'' on. They intend to vote ``yes'' outlining the ways that Iran was an imminent threat, even though they say it is not in our interests and all of these other things.

My colleague over there said that the sole objective of Iran is to wreak havoc--that equals imminent threat; create violence--equals imminent threat to me; cause instability; and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life. That sounds like a pretty damn big imminent threat to me.

It went on to say in the legislation: ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States.'' That sounds like an imminent threat. I know he didn't use the exact words, but sometimes you have to read between the lines, read between those lines.

``The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon.'' That is an imminent threat.

Again, I would say read between the lines. If you can't read between those lines, you probably don't have business working in the national security sphere.

Let's go over some other quotes that were said here.

They said that we have troops there. We have troops there, so the war is not over. The combat is not over.

Guess what, Ms. Clark. We have troops in Germany, but I can tell you that World War II--not World War 11, according to Ms. Omar--World War II is over, but we still have troops in Germany and still have troops in Europe. We had, previous to these operations against Iran, troops throughout the Middle East.

Just because we have troops there doesn't mean that this hasn't ended. It has ended since April 7, and I applaud President Trump for the cease-fire that he has negotiated and the peace that he continues to work toward.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have more to talk about and go over more quotes here.

Ms. Clark said there is no strategy. I will tell you, she has been briefed numerous times, probably about 30 times, if she chose to attend all the classified briefings or was invited to all of them. I don't know which ones she was entirely invited to.

To say that there is no strategy is absolutely a direct insult to our United States Armed Forces, all of our generals, all of our colonels, all of our majors, all of our leaders working in tactical operations centers, the Pentagon, crunching data day in and day out, doing everything that they do to plan every single part of these operations: every time an aircraft takes off of a carrier; the targets that they are looking at; everything that they are looking to hit, when and in what order; what they have to hit before they go hit something further in the interior of Iran.

It is an insult to our military to say that there is no strategy. It takes away from every bit of strategy that is going on.

Let's keep going on.

My colleague Mr. Gottheimer, to quote him, said: I believe that we-- that they must be ``crushed.'' I agree with my colleague that they must be crushed. They have to be crushed. He wrote this legislation because of the imminent threat that Iran is. My colleague agreed with that.

Though my colleague, the ranking member over there, said that nobody could agree that it was an imminent threat, that Republicans couldn't prove it, there is at least one Democrat who agrees and was willing to see that through.

It is theatrics. It is theatrics that hurt our servicemembers.

There is probably only one thank-you that should be given, and that would be a thank-you from the IRGC to my colleagues over there for giving them hope. Without my colleagues over there, the IRGC would have zero hope.

Because they keep bringing forward ridiculous pieces of legislation like this, where they are unwilling to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran is, all the attacks that have taken place against the United States of America, against our servicemembers, against our tankers, against our Navy vessels, against those of all of our allies, it continues to be theatrics because they won't see this. They are going to get hit in the face and deny that they ever got touched.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time in just one moment and simply say I urge a ``no'' vote on this because it is ridiculous and dangerous to say, especially in the midst of this cease-fire, of the negotiations for long-term peace, to prevent Iran from seeking a nuclear weapon in the future or seeking to continue their ballistic missile program or their drone program or their terror proxy programs or what they have been doing in the strait, that we even whisper the idea of pulling our servicemembers out of that area. It could not be more irresponsible of my colleagues to suggest that that take place.

They say they want negotiations. Those are taking place, but they want negotiations without the United States military protecting ships, knocking ordnance out of the sky, and being the very credible threat that the United States military is? That makes absolutely no sense.

Again, people that assess that way I do not want in the United States of America's national security decisionmaking tree.

I will say that I look forward to seeing that my colleagues over there vote ``yes,'' even though I recommend a ``no'' vote. Why? Because their ``yes'' vote literally shows just how much they agree that Iran is an imminent threat, even though they keep saying they are not, which directly leads to the legal justification for every operation that is taking place or has taken place against Iran.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true legend, somebody that I am proud to call a friend, as we recognize the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest performances in all of sports, the 1986 Masters.

Jack Nicklaus had been dismissed as past his prime, but he shocked the world when he mounted the greatest charge that Augusta has ever witnessed. The Golden Bear birdied 9, birdied 10, birdied 11, birdied 13. He eagled 15 with a 4-iron that landed 12 feet from the pin, nearly made a hole-in-one on 16, and birdied 17 to take the lead for the first time of the week. When it was all over, he shot a final round of 65 and won his sixth Masters' title, a record that still stands today.

His 18 major championship wins continue to inspire every amateur golfer, every athlete. Anybody who aspires for greatness, he inspires them. Now, 40 years later, what happened in Augusta, Georgia, on April 14, 1986, it is a testament to what is possible when talent, perseverance, and hard work all converge at the right moment.

I ask everyone to join me in recognizing Jack Nicklaus on that anniversary of his incredible win.

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 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 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 it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 40 in the House if called up by the chair of the

Committee on Foreign Affairs or its designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.