We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
29 public bills, H.R. 7782- 7810; and 10 resolutions, H.J. Res. 151; H. Con. Res. 75; and H. Res. 1099-1106, were introduced.
Pages H2419-21
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Norman to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2373
Recess
The House recessed at 10:46 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2378
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026: Rule for Consideration
The House agreed to H. Res. 1095, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7744) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, by a recorded vote of 211 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 80, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 79.
Pages H2380-90
Suspensions: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Tuesday, March 3rd. Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act: S. 723, to require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process and complete all mortgage packages associated with residential and business mortgages on Indian land by certain deadlines, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 384 yeas to 40 nays, Roll No. 81; and
Page H2390
Territorial Student Access to Higher Education Act
H.R. 6472, amended, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in- state tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 351 yeas to 72 nays, Roll No. 82.
Pages H2390-91
Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of the Committee's review of violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment) and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives: The House considered H. Res. 1100, directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of the Committee's review of violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment) and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Representative Gabarino offered a motion to refer to the Committee on Ethics, which was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 357 yeas to 65 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 83.
Pages H2391-92
Suspension: Proceedings Postponed
The House debated the following measures under suspension of the rules. Further proceedings were postponed. Reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism: H. Res. 1099, reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Pages H2392-95
Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The House considered H. Con. Res. 38, directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, March 5th.
Pages H2395-H2412
Senate Referral
S. 3971 was held at the desk.
Page H2378
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H2378. Quorum Calls--Votes: Four yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2388-89, H2389-90, H2390, H2390-91, and H2391-92. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:46 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 141 of 264 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a towering figure in the history of Kansas City, Missouri, and in the life of Missouri's Fifth Congressional District, Mr. Alvin Brooks, on the occasion of the 300th consecutive meeting of the Alvin Brooks Wednesday night Black men's chats.
That is 300 consecutive weeks. That is 300 consecutive weeks of showing up, 300 sacred spaces for dialogue, and 300 opportunities for healing, mentorship, accountability, and growth.
At age 93 years young, Mr. Brooks has not only witnessed history, he has helped shape it.
As a young man growing up in the super-segregated city called Kansas City, Alvin Brooks refused to accept the limitations imposed on him by racism and injustice. At a time when the color of our skin too often determined the boundaries of our opportunity, Mr. Brooks chose courage. He chose service. He chose to become one of Kansas City's few Black police officers in 1954.
That decision was not only about a career. It was about breaking barriers. It was about ensuring that marginalized voices would have a place where they could be heard.
Alvin Brooks was a mover and shaker. Throughout his distinguished career in law enforcement, Mr. Brooks became a crucial pillar of our community. He served not only as an officer but as a bridge-builder. He served not only as a public servant, but as a civil rights advocate. He served not only as a leader within the department, but eventually as president of the Kansas City, Missouri, Board of Police Commissioners.
Even beyond those titles, Mr. Brooks has always been what Kansas City knows him to be: a steady presence in moments of crisis, a trusted voice in times of unrest, and a moral compass when our city needs clarity and calmness.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.'' Alvin Brooks has been and continues to be that light: a light of nonviolence, a light of racial reconciliation, a light of justice, and a light to show the way for the changing and coming generations.
Even at an age when many would have long ago stepped back, Mr. Brooks stepped up. In the midst of a global pandemic in 2020, a time of isolation, anxiety, and national reckoning, Mr. Brooks established the Alvin Brooks Wednesday night Black men's chats. What began as a virtual gathering became something extraordinary, a consistent intergenerational forum bringing together men from across Missouri and eventually from across the whole Nation. The discussions included faith and public policy, civil rights, education, public health, the history of the Negro Leagues, and the urgent issues facing Black communities in America.
For nearly six uninterrupted years, Mr. Brooks has convened those meetings every single week. The chats have brought together civic leaders, education, faith leaders, civil rights advocates, students from historically Black colleges and universities and public officials, including Members of this very House in a space rooted in respect and growth.
That consistency is not accidental. It is a reflection of how Alvin Brooks has always been and will always be.
His commitment to service extends even further through the work of a civil rights leader and as a former member of the Hickman Mills school board, where he continued to invest in the future of Kansas City's children. He understands that community empowerment begins with education and that equity must be built generation by generation.
Mr. Speaker, what makes this milestone so powerful is not just the number 300. It is the discipline, faith, and the love behind it.
In an era when civic discourse can feel fractured and fleeting, Mr. Brooks reminds us that democracy is strengthened in small rooms and virtual gatherings just as much as it is on this floor. He reminds us that leadership is not about spotlight but stewardship.
For decades, Alvin Brooks has carried the mantle of responsibility with grace, helping guide communities through pain and progress alike.
Today, as we recognize this historic man, this giant of a man, his legacy of resilience and courage and service without ego will continue.
Mr. Speaker, for nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, has brutally targeted and killed Americans.
Through its own forces and its network of proxy militias, Iran has killed and injured thousands of Americans: diplomats, servicemembers, and civilians alike. No other terrorist regime has claimed more American lives. When the Ayatollahs of Iran chant ``death to America,'' they mean it. President Trump's bold and decisive actions have helped protect American lives and defended our national interests.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind this body of the Iranian regime's ongoing and bloody campaign against the American people.
The following is only a partial record.
November 1979: Iranian students, backed by the regime, seized our embassy in Tehran and took 66 Americans for 444 days.
April 1983: an Iran-backed terrorist group bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 77 Americans.
October 1983: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists bombed the marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. military personnel, including 220 Marines.
March 1984: Iran-backed terrorists kidnapped CIA Station Chief William Buckley in Beirut. He later died in captivity.
July 1989: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists murdered U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins after kidnapping him while he was serving on a U.N. peacekeeping mission.
Throughout the 1990s, Iran-backed terrorists repeatedly targeted Americans in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
April 1995: a car bomb in the Gaza strip killed eight people, including one American citizen.
1995 through 1997: a series of suicide bombings on buses and shopping districts and public places in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv killed and wounded American citizens and dual nationals.
June 1996: Hezbollah terrorists directed by Iran bombed the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. airmen and wounding hundreds more.
August 1998: al-Qaida suicide bombers, facilitated by Iran-backed Hezbollah, bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including dozens of Americans.
In the 2000s, Iran and its proxies continued targeting Americans, including multiple bombings in Jerusalem and at Hebrew University that killed and wounded American citizens.
October 2003: Iran-backed terrorists killed three U.S. diplomatic personnel in a bombing in Gaza.
Between 2003 and 2011, Iran-backed militias killed at least 603 U.S. troops in Iraq, roughly one in six of every Americans killed in combat and fatalities in that war, including some of my friends.
March 2007: former FBI agent Robert Levinson disappeared in Iran and is believed to have died in an Iranian prison, becoming one of the longest held American captives in history.
In the last decade, the pattern has continued.
December 2019: Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. servicemembers in a rocket attack in Iraq.
January 2020: Iranian ballistic missile attack on Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq left 109 U.S. troops with traumatic brain injuries.
February 2021 and July 2021: Iran-backed militias launched rocket and drone attacks that wounded U.S. servicemembers and American contractors in Iraq and Syria.
September 2022 and November 2022: Iran and IRGC-linked operatives killed American citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan and Baghdad.
March 2023: an Iranian drone strike on a coalition base in Syria killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor.
October 7, 2023: Iran-backed Hamas terrorists murdered 46 Americans and kidnapped at least a dozen more in the October 7 massacre.
Between 2023 and November 2024: Iran and its proxies conducted more than 180 attacks on U.S. Forces in the Middle East, wounding over 180 American servicemembers and killing three.
January 2024: Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed three U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 in a drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan.
November 2024: an Iranian national and IRGC asset was charged in a plot to assassinate President Trump on behalf of the Iranian regime.
June 2025: Iran-backed militias attacked multiple U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq, again targeting American troops.
Mr. Speaker, this is only a partial list of Iran's bloody war on American citizens. For decades, administrations of both parties have understood this threat. President Trump's actions are part of a necessary effort to defend American lives. I spent a lot of time in the Middle East in a lot of places, and there has been one constant: Iranian-backed terrorist groups have always been trying to kill Americans. That ends now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as our community and our Nation mourn a death that should have never happened.
Nurul Amin Shah Alam was 56 years old. He was a Rohingya refugee who came to the U.S. legally after fleeing persecution and violence in Burma, searching for safety for himself and his family.
He made his way to Buffalo, the city of Good Neighbors.
He was nearly blind. He spoke very little English. He could not read, write, or navigate on his own. On February 19, DHS gave Mr. Shah Alam what they called a courtesy ride. That so-called courtesy ride resulted in him being left alone at a closed coffee shop miles from his family's home in the dead of winter.
It would also be the last time Mr. Shah Alam was seen alive. His family was not notified. His attorney was not notified. There was no coordinated handoff, no protection for a man that was a vulnerable individual with disabilities.
For 5 days, his loved ones checked hospitals and shelters. They walked the streets in search of Mr. Shah Alam, and they waited for answers that would never come.
Mr. Shah Alam was tragically found dead. His last known interaction was with Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security. That fact alone demands a full and independent investigation. When someone in government custody is abandoned and then found dead, the American people deserve answers.
Under Trump and Kristi Noem, we have seen a disgusting pattern of cruelty, inhumanity, and injustice from their Department of Homeland Security. It is a pattern rooted in hate, division, and intolerance, with a willful and complete disregard for human life.
Leadership matters. Accountability matters. The Department of Homeland Security under Kristi Noem has neither.
Our communities deserve a government that protects the vulnerable, not one that drops them in the cold in the dark of night.
The death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam is a failure of our entire system. Those at the top must answer for it, starting with Kristi Noem.
Mr. Shah Alam should be alive today. He came to our country seeking refuge. Instead, his family laid him to rest last week.
This should not be just another headline or more background noise to be forgotten. A man is dead after being abandoned by our government. His
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the completion of the Carolina Rising project in Gaffney, South Carolina, along with those dedicated individuals who have worked tirelessly to bring this project to fruition and to preserve, promote, and shape the deep-rooted history of Cherokee County. We thank them for their dedication to this cause.
The Carolina Rising initiative is a historic undertaking for South Carolina. It came about through the efforts of Gaffney's tourism administrator, LeighAnn Moon. For nearly three decades, LeighAnn has worked tirelessly to strengthen the community identity and to expand rural tourism in Gaffney, South Carolina.
From conversations with visitors, LeighAnn quickly discovered many were drawn to Cherokee County because of its historic background, its Revolutionary War landmarks, and its extensive resources.
This reality helped her shape Carolina Rising, a strategic effort to research, document, and interpret the county's contributions to America's independence in a way that is accessible to the public. It is now an innovative museum in the heart of Gaffney, South Carolina.
This region was the site of numerous historic battles, including both the Battle of Kings Mountain and the Battle of Cowpens. Monumental American victories here weakened British control in the backcountry and strengthened the patriot position at a decisive moment in the war.
The Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail also passes through the area where the museum now sits, marking the route taken by the United States militia forces. These historic efforts proved critical to the outcome of the revolution in South Carolina.
The museum's construction came about through the restoration and reuse of the historic Carnegie Free Library in downtown Gaffney. Constructed in 1913, the Carnegie Free Library is one of only 14 libraries built in South Carolina. For generations, it was the center of literacy, research, and civic engagement.
This project successfully transformed the landmark into a modern museum experience dedicated to the Revolutionary War in the region. It incorporates interactive exhibits, curated artifacts, digital interpretation, and educational programming. The facility has space for lectures, student tours, and historic research.
Carolina Rising simultaneously pays tribute to Gaffney's past while serving as a resource for future South Carolinians.
Its launch is a tremendous success. It has been over a decade in the making. Yet, Carolina Rising represents more than 14 years of planning and investment. It reflects constant collaboration among local leaders, State officials, preservation advocates, historians, and private supporters who all share that commitment to honoring our Nation's past while strengthening our local economy.
By expanding heritage tourism, supporting small businesses, and increasing downtown visitations, Carolina Rising will contribute to sustained economic development in Gaffney and, overall, Cherokee County.
I am very proud to say that Carolina Rising demonstrates the planning, deep respect for history, and stalwart confidence in the future of all South Carolinians, but particularly those in Gaffney.
Mr. Speaker, I commend those who have brought this initiative forward and thank them for their continued service to the people of South Carolina. Their efforts have successfully seen this project come together for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, as Baghdad was first bombed 23 years ago, Americans were bombarded with lies. When that giant statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down, the lies were paired with attacks on all of us who opposed what was ultimately recognized by almost all as a colossal American blunder.
Though later President Bush announced ``mission accomplished,'' the killing continued. Ultimately, over 4,400 American lives were lost and $2 trillion spent on this unwarranted invasion that, unfortunately, only benefited Iran.
Now, as Tehran is bombed, we are once again being bombarded with lies. Our trigger-happy President issued his personal declaration of war without approval of Congress, without exhausting nonviolent alternatives, and without any real plan after the bombs stopped falling.
Just months ago, Trump told the Nation that he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear capability. With no imminent threat to our country, he declared war just because he likes issuing decrees.
He loves issuing imperial decrees, whether it is imposing new tariff taxes, obstructing our voting rights, or declaring himself the acting President of Venezuela. It is the American people who will pay the price in blood and treasure for his military adventurism.
Trump callously has responded already ``that's the way it is'' to the deaths of American servicemembers and so many innocent civilians. With his war spreading across the Middle East, Trump is not ruling out ground troops, since airpower alone will not be sufficient to accomplish the regime change that he is obviously seeking.
While certainly not mourning the death of Iranian tyrants, despicable people, rarely has assassination of such foreign leaders produced a peaceful result. Two decades of experience in Afghanistan and Iraq tell us that even boots on the ground are insufficient to accomplish a peaceful democratic society. Only the Iranian people can do that.
Of course, Trump is also sending a message to fellow authoritarians Xi and Putin that might makes right. Use war if it is helpful.
Ironically, we learned that President Trump's action does not demonstrate strength, but rather weakness. Secretary Rubio has confirmed that Trump was just yielding to Netanyahu's planned attack by saying, essentially, ``me, too.'' He was too weak to tell Netanyahu no, as President Bush had wisely done. Trump talks tough and brandishes a very powerful military, but he cannot stand up to powerful leaders like Netanyahu and Putin.
Choosing war is not ``peace through strength.'' It is a means of diverting attention from multiple Trump failures here at home. Coming just after revelations from the Justice Department of hiding documents accusing Trump of sexually abusing a minor, this war of choice may even be useful as a distraction from the Epstein files that have not been fully disclosed.
In Trump's own words, this is a war that could go on ``as long as it takes,'' perhaps as long as it takes for him to interfere in the November elections and secure a Congress that will continue to be little more than a doormat for him.
With war so much easier to get into than to get out of, it is imperative that this Congress act swiftly this week to approve the War Powers Resolution to save American lives and stop another destabilizing, bloody conflict that will have repercussions for generations to come.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American. I am proud to recognize Ms. Marcey Phillips, a fourth- generation U.S. Army veteran, for her courageous service to our Nation and her continued dedication to the men and women who have worn the uniform.
Marcey comes from a family with a strong tradition of military service. In
Like many who have served in combat, Marcey returned carrying invisible wounds. The experiences of war took their toll. In 2019, Marcey found a trusted companion and a source of healing in Beignet, a beautiful black Labrador retriever who has been with her ever since.
That hasn't stopped Marcey. She stepped forward time after time. She continues to serve. She continues to be a steadfast advocate for fellow veterans through the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Today, she proudly serves as the post commander for VFW Post 4709 in Conroe, Texas, and as the District 17 commander at the State level.
She leads with integrity, purpose, and commitment to every veteran post, district, and community she serves. Marcey Phillips exemplifies what it means to serve in uniform and in life.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, we thank Marcey. We thank her for her service. We thank her for her sacrifice. We thank her for continuing to lead. We are honored to call her an American hero.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in observance of the 61st anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the annual Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage through Alabama, which will take place this weekend in Birmingham, Montgomery, and my hometown of Selma, Alabama.
Beginning this Friday, March 6, we in Alabama will once again welcome Members of Congress and dignitaries from across the Nation to lay eyes on the faces and places of the civil rights and voting rights movement.
Hosted by the Faith and Politics Institute, we will retrace the footsteps of civil rights giants and pay homage to the sacrifices made in the name of equality and justice for all.
Our pilgrimage will begin in Birmingham, where we will pay tribute to the four little girls killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. Together, we will reflect on the legacy of visionary Birmingham leaders like Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who led the fight against segregation alongside Dr. King.
We will then travel to Montgomery, Alabama--home to Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides Museum, and the Equal Justice Initiative--where ordinary citizens took a bold stand against injustice.
We will conclude our pilgrimage by crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in my hometown of Selma. We will commemorate the events of Bloody Sunday. Together, we will walk in the footsteps of our former colleague, the late, great Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten and bloodied by Alabama State troopers while peacefully demonstrating for the rights of all Americans to vote.
This year's pilgrimage could not come at a more critical time in our Nation's history. As we speak, officials at the highest levels of government are waging a concerted and coordinated effort to attack the rights and freedoms secured by our foremothers and our forefathers. They are attempting to erase our history, to roll back our progress, to silence our voices, and to dilute our power.
Meanwhile, the fate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court considers a case that could gut its remaining protections.
It is my hope that this year's pilgrimage will serve not only as a reminder of our past but a roadmap for our future.
Mr. Speaker, the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement were tacticians and strategists. In these troubled times, we should take a page from their playbook, because ``good trouble, necessary trouble'' is needed now more than ever.
Mr. Speaker, this year's pilgrimage is also bittersweet. It will be the last time that we will be joined in our official capacity by Congressman and former majority leader, Steny Hoyer.
Congressman Hoyer is retiring from the House of Representatives this year, and I pay special tribute to him and his dedication for coming annually to the pilgrimage. No one in this body has been a more steadfast supporter of our annual pilgrimage than Leader Hoyer. He made the trip to Alabama 18 times, and this will be his 19th time commemorating Bloody Sunday.
I will always cherish the memories we made alongside John Lewis and our colleagues during the pilgrimage. While he will be sorely missed in the Halls of Congress, I know that Leader Hoyer's service to our Nation will not end with his retirement, and neither will his dedication to protecting and advancing our civil rights.
On behalf of Alabama's Seventh Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in observing the 61st anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the upcoming annual Civil Rights Pilgrimage.
May we leave this weekend renewed, refreshed, and ready to get into some ``good trouble.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable West Virginian, devoted public servant, and a faithful Christian, my friend, the Honorable Justice Tim Armstead.
Justice Armstead dedicated his life to serving the people of West Virginia with unwavering integrity, conviction, and grace. Born in Charleston on February 26, 1965, Tim graduated from the University of Charleston and went on to earn his juris doctorate from the West Virginia University College of Law.
After beginning his public service career as a press intern for my grandfather, Governor Arch Moore, Justice Armstead went on to achieve a distinguished legacy defined by his strong leadership, built on the back of his Christian faith.
In 1998, Justice Armstead became a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates and served there for the next two decades. During that time, Tim became the first Republican speaker of the house in more than 80 years. Every step of the way, Tim led from a firm commitment to conservative principles and an unparalleled witness to his Christian faith.
In 2018, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. While there, his fidelity to the rule of law and people of our State truly shined, so much so that he served twice as chief justice. He stewarded the court through a challenging time and worked tirelessly to restore public trust in our judiciary.
Tim's time as chief justice earned him the distinction of being the first West Virginian to ever ascend to the top of both the legislature and the judiciary, a truly amazing accomplishment.
Tim joined his Lord in Heaven on August 26, 2025, and he is survived by his beloved wife, Anna; his daughter, Katie; and his two cherished grandchildren.
With his passing, West Virginia has lost a principled leader, a dedicated jurist, a devoted family man, a committed Christian, and a dear friend. My family and a grateful State will miss him dearly.
Eternal rest, grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our veterans. They protect us in conflict. They wear the uniform. They stand watch in places that most of us will never see, and then they come home to stand in line.
In my district, the wait time for new mental health appointments is 31 days. It is 31 days. When you are battling an
We say that the statistics have gotten better, but better is unacceptable. There are more than 16 million veterans in the United States. More than 1.5 million veterans call Florida home. They are our neighbors, our children, and our parents.
Still, on average, one veteran dies by suicide every 65 minutes. By the time we go to bed tonight, 17 chairs will sit empty at dinner tables across America. That is 17 folded flags and 17 families staring at their phones that will never ring again. It is not because they weren't strong enough. It is not because they didn't fight hard enough, but it is because we didn't fight hard enough to give them the services that they deserve and need.
If we can send our sons and our daughters into harm's way, then it is our duty to ensure that they have access to counseling, crisis services, and the dignity of timely care when they come home.
To our veterans who are watching, they are not alone. Their service mattered, and in this Congress, their lives matter during and after, too.
Mr. Speaker, our veterans are not lost, and they are always in our hearts. They upheld their duty to us, and now it is our duty to uphold our promise to them--not in 31 days, not tomorrow, but today and now.
To all of our veterans and our VSOs who are here visiting on the Hill, we thank them for their service and their courage, and we will never stop fighting for them until we fulfill our promise to them.
Mr. Speaker, March is Women's History Month, a time when we make an extra effort to honor and recognize women across the United States and the world who have made a positive, sustained impact upon society.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article honoring the life of Gladys West, a brilliant mathematician who played an integral role in creating GPS technology.
Gladys was a 42-year civilian employee of the United States Navy. Due to the classified nature of her work, few individuals knew of her contributions to this now popular and essential technology as it was being developed.
Here are quotes from the article I have referenced:
``In her 42-year career as a civilian employee of the Navy, West learned to program computers and solve mathematical problems she could never have imagined in graduate school. Some of her work involved measuring the precise contours of the Earth, on land and at sea, allowing for the effects of tides and other forces. She was particularly diligent about checking for accuracy. The research was vital for creation of the Global Positioning System, or GPS, a priority for the U.S. military in the 1970s and 1980s.''
Ms. West was inducted into the Air Force Space and Missile Pioneers Hall of Fame in 2018 and was awarded the President's Award by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers for her work in helping create GPS.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. West's story is one of service, hard work, determination, and perseverance, and I am quite certain that her story and accomplishments will continue to serve as an inspiration for generations of proud Americans to come.
I thank Gladys' family for sharing her so wonderfully with the rest of the world. I thank Gladys, even though she is now gone, for the wonderful work that she did in helping our country and the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the magnificent jewel located in the heart of the village of Mamaroneck, the Emelin Theatre.
The Emelin is a nonprofit organization that brings world-class performing arts to all of Westchester, as well as nearby Connecticut. The events at the Emelin cover all genres of music, comedy, dance, family theater, and film. In the next few weeks alone, there will be performances highlighting Motown, flamenco dance, southern rock, jazz, cabaret standards, and numerous community events that will be hosted in their spacious environment.
The professional staff, led by Taryn Sacramone, ably directs and manages all of the component parts of the Emelin's mission, and community commitment to the Emelin is exceptional, led by Mark Ettenger, board president.
The generosity of the board of directors and the Friends of the Emelin provide the additional resources needed to keep this asset thriving decades after its inception.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we recognize the tremendous presence of the Emelin in our Westchester world.
Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, we speak of this American experiment in democracy that is 250 years in the making under principles forged in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the laws of the judicial rulings that have followed. Yet, these principles will die on the vine of history if they aren't taught and absorbed by each new generation of Americans.
One effort to keep those ideas alive is found in the New Rochelle Bar Association's unique outreach in the New Rochelle school system, the Lawyers in the Classroom program.
The New Rochelle Bar has signed up members skilled in all elements of the law to speak to elementary and middle school students in the nearly 10 schools in the district and make constitutional principles come alive--amendments with numbers that represent important principles: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the 10th Amendment--helping young people understand, in everyday language, what these principles mean in everyday life.
In addition to the educators at the schools of Trinity, Jefferson, Columbus, Barnard, Webster, Davis, Ward, Albert Leonard, and Isaac Young, let me recognize some of the long list of lawyers who have dedicated time for this project: Mayor Yadira Ramos-Herbert, Andy Spatz, Suzanne Berger, Jennifer Pasquantonio, Regina Matos, David Lacher, Artem Djukic, Adam Sattler, Laurie Korngold, Jeffrey Levin, Michele Tombini, Barry Salman, Stephanie Vetch, Susan Kettner, Frank D'Onofrio, Michael Schiffer, Julie Kattan, Christina Hall, Milton Kreppel, and so many more--a real all-star lineup on the frontline team for democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate a dynamic couple, Barry and Barbara Reiter, as they plan to celebrate their 70th birthdays together later this month.
Barry and I were in Mount Vernon High School together all those years ago. He is a tad younger than I am, but he and Barbara have given years of community service over and above their professional careers and in raising their family. Their service in volunteer emergency services for their town and Barry's service on the town council are just two examples.
Mr. Speaker, take it from one who knows that age 70 is an achievement in life and an opportunity to continue to serve, and Barry and Barbara will.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, happy birthday to Barbara and Barry Reiter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Morenci High School boys' wrestling team on winning the Division IV wrestling title for the 2025-2026 season.
The Morenci Wildcats totaled 214.5 points to win the Division IV title and were led by three teammates who each placed first overall in their weight classes.
Jacob Goodwin won the 159-pound championship with a total of four victories, with a total of three pins, as well.
Emerson Montes won the 152-pound title and secured a major decision in the championship match.
Caden Woodall won the 167-pound championship, with two pins during his run for that championship.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Coach Casey Woodall, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible. Their hard work has made their school and community very proud. The Wildcats should enjoy this victory. They earned it. Here is to another successful season and many more to come.
Sahuarita High School Boys' Wrestling Win Division III State Title
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sahuarita High School Boys' Wrestling Team on winning the Division III wrestling title for the fifth consecutive season.
The Mustangs are only the fifth program in Arizona Interscholastic Association history to reach this milestone. The team won the State title with a total of 239 points, 92 points ahead of the runners-up.
In addition, the Mustangs had five team members who took first place in their individual weight classes. Sophomore Marcus Killgore and senior Sebastian Serrano each won their individual weight class championship, earning both of them their second straight State titles. Additionally, senior James Buck and juniors Nathaniel Gallardo and Sergio Macias also won the title in their individual weight classes.
This win also marks the seventh consecutive year that the Mustangs have finished as State champions or as runner-up.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Coach Paul Vasquez, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible. Their hard work has made their school and community very proud. The Mustangs should enjoy their victory. They have earned this one. Here is to another successful season and many more to come.
Mr. Speaker, the Tehran regime is the head of the snake of terrorism worldwide, chanting death to America. They have targeted, kidnapped, wounded, and killed thousands of Americans for 47 years.
President Donald Trump repeatedly sought peace, but the Iranian regime boasted of 11 nuclear bombs, as exposed by talented Envoy Steve Witkoff.
As a result, President Trump made the decision with Israel to launch Operation Epic Fury, defending American families. The objectives are clear: destroy the missile capabilities, annihilate the naval assets, and ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.
Senior Iranian despots and murderous Khamenei have been destroyed.
We grieve for the courageous servicemembers wounded and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reiterating peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump as Putin declares solidarity with the Iranian mass murderers.
Our prayers are with devoted Indiana Congressman Jim Baird upon the loss of his wife, Danise.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding work of the men and women who lead the Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce.
Every month, they hold a Zoom meeting for all of their members and provide the latest information of value to the businessowners and retailers who provide goods and services to the people of Mount Vernon. The guest speakers cover substantive topics such as access to capital, tax preparation, availability of grant programs, healthcare, personnel issues, tariffs, and much more.
Every month, I join in virtually to give a Federal issues update. The same is true for county officials such as County Executive Ken Jenkins and Shari Rosen Ascher.
The chamber is led by Omar Fields, chairman of the board; Anita Hunt, board secretary; and former Mount Vernon Councilwoman Lisa Copeland, who serves as president. They do a tremendous service to the people and to
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we salute the Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I begin today with some sad news. On February 19, the House and Senate community lost a beloved and dedicated member of the United States Capitol Police Force.
Special Agent Eden Holguin tragically passed away at only 41 years of age. He was a proud veteran and a former Texas State Trooper. For 3 years, he served admirably here as a Capitol Police officer and as a special agent. He was highly respected.
Law enforcement is a noble calling, as we all know. It is one that is too often thankless and always demanding. These men and women stand guard on the lines of justice and freedom. They protect all of us who work here, as well as the countless individuals and visitors who come to the United States Capitol every day from across our Nation and across the world.
In the face of adversity and danger, every day demands courage, diligence, and professionalism. He brought that every day.
We don't take the duty lightly. It is because of Agent Holguin, and so many brave Americans like him, that Congress can carry out its constitutional duties here, that we represent the voices of our constituents, and that we can effectuate the will of the American people safely and freely.
Today, family, friends, and loved ones of Agent Holguin will gather to memorialize this hero in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I wanted to come here on the House floor and acknowledge him, as well. We thank them for standing by his side as Agent Holguin followed the demanding but noble path of law enforcement. We want to let them know that our prayers are with them as they honor this brave patriot and celebrate his life, all too short though it was, of selfless sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, in 1848, a freshman Congressman from Illinois wrote that the Constitution gives war-making powers to Congress, and the ability of one man to initiate a war places our President where kings have always stood. That was Abraham Lincoln.
Today, the American people do not want another bloody, endless war, but a President who campaigned on no new wars is dragging this country and our allies into a war with little explanation and no clear long- term strategy.
The President has bluntly stated that the deaths of American servicemembers are a price he is willing to pay. Yet, just 6 months ago, he insisted that Iran's nuclear program had been completely and totally obliterated.
If that was the case, then what is the rationale for starting this war?
Our men and women in uniform are not disposable. Americans want no part of this war.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed light on endometriosis, a chronic and debilitating condition affecting more than 6.5 million women across the United States.
Despite its prevalence, it often goes undiagnosed for years. The journey to diagnosis is long, an average of more than 6 years from first symptoms to definitive diagnosis. Raising awareness is the first step to change.
That is why I thank Mary Alice Marriott Hatch for her partnership in bringing a screening of ``Below the Belt'' to Capitol Hill on March 18. I invite all of my congressional colleagues to join us and learn more about this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, awareness alone isn't enough. Investing in research, improving training for health professionals, and removing barriers to care are essential steps. With proper funding and attention, we can find effective treatments, improve quality of life, and bring hope to millions.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to give endometriosis care the attention that it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose President Trump's illegal, unconstitutional, and reckless war in Iran.
We are 5 days in, and we have lost six brave American servicemembers, and thousands of Americans are stranded abroad. My prayers are with their families and with everyone who is in harm's way.
After yesterday's briefing, I am more convinced than ever that there was no imminent threat to America, and there is no clear endgame strategy.
Americans need affordable healthcare, groceries, and lower gas prices, not a war that costs $220 million a day and puts our troops in danger without a clearly defined mission.
That is why I will vote for the bipartisan War Powers Resolution to rein in this out-of-control President and end his unauthorized hostilities in Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to indicate that I attended the classified briefing yesterday. General Caine was there. The Secretary of State was there. The Secretary of War was there. I stayed from start to finish.
Mr. Speaker, after hearing from them, I have concluded that there was not--N-O-T--an imminent threat to this country, to my country, the country that I love.
I also concluded something else: that we should not put our young people in harm's way such that they are losing their lives, when the President knew or should have known that there was no imminent threat.
I will vote for the resolution. I believe it is an appropriate resolution, and I trust that it will pass. Of course, this is the Massie-Khanna resolution that I speak of.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my most sincere congratulations to Hot Springs local Dub Ballard on his 100th birthday.
Reaching such a remarkable milestone is an achievement in itself, but the life Dub has lived is especially worthy of recognition.
Mr. Ballard was born into a time when a chuck roast cost 22 cents per pound. He has seen our Nation move and grow through times of hardship and progress, all while calling the Natural State his home.
With grandparents who owned a local grocery store, a mother who churned butter and raised chickens to sell, and a family farm growing cotton and corn, Mr. Ballard inherited a family legacy deeply rooted in commitment to his community.
This legacy followed him into his adult years. As a beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Dub has led an exemplary life. From working on his family farm at age 6 to retiring from a long- tenured career with Coca-Cola at the young age of 98, Mr. Ballard is the definition of hard work and grit.
As a valued member of The Church of the Open Door and Hot Springs' senior
May Dub's 100th birthday be a celebration of a life well-lived and a legacy that endures for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of a friend and his service to his community in northern California and the community I am so privileged to represent in Contra Costa County.
Steven Roberti developed a love for service through his membership at a young age in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302 in Martinez, California.
Steven served as manager of the Contra Costa Labor Council from 1988 to 1996 and was later appointed to serve as region 9 manager at the U.S. Department of Labor, overseeing labor affairs across the Western United States during the Obama administration.
Steven also worked for the United Way, Shelter Inc., and the Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation.
Steven was a staunch advocate for working people and will be remembered for his lasting impact on the labor movement in California and his dedicated public service.
Please join me in honoring this wonderful man's memory, a fighter for American workers, Steven Roberti.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Cora Vigil Gomez, one of the first women on the Tribal Council for the Jicarilla Apache Nation.
She lived a life of passion, self-reliance, service to the community, and hard work. As one of the Tribal Council members, she was instrumental in the lawsuit against corporations who said that you can't tax them. She attended the United States Supreme Court hearing, and that Nation established the sovereign right of Tribes to impose taxation to fund their government.
She started an elderly meal program where she actually butchered the sheep herself and then delivered the meals. It eventually became federally and State funded and is now still serving the people of the region.
In the 1980s, she was one of only four Native American representatives from New Mexico for Title IV of the Older Americans Act, which commenced the Federal funding of Tribal programs for elders.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have represented Cora Vigil Gomez and her Nation as an attorney and as her Representative.
I honor Councilwoman Gomez, and am so sad for all of us now that she has passed, but I am so glad that we can remember and be inspired by her for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for consideration of one measure. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7744 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 weeks ago, on February 13, my Democrat colleagues irresponsibly and vindictively shut down the Department of Homeland Security, crippling the capabilities of the very Department charged with protecting the American people.
Leading up to that moment, I brought forth a rule that allowed the House to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, legislation that funded the remainder of the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security.
Despite previously agreeing to a bipartisan and bicameral approach to fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year, including provisions for both funding and enhanced oversight, Democrats reversed course at the last minute and have since held this critical funding hostage, directly putting the safety and security of the American people at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I return today to give my Democrat colleagues the opportunity to reverse course on this dangerous lapse in leadership and move legislation forward that provides full funding for the personnel, training, and technology necessary to protect our homeland and keep our communities safe, secure, and resilient.
The Department of Homeland Security oversees agencies responsible for aviation security, border protection, cyber defense, disaster response, maritime security, and counterterrorism missions that directly impact the safety of millions of Americans every single day.
Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to consider legislation that will fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that the agencies tasked with keeping the American people safe, from counterterrorism to cybersecurity, to disaster response, are not weakened at a moment when threats are rapidly increasing.
A ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to stand with the men and women on the frontlines of our national security, from coastguardsmen to GSA officers, to cyber defenders, law enforcement personnel, and emergency responders who are now working every day without pay to keep our country safe.
A ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to consider legislation to end this Democrat shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and restore the resources necessary to defend the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the need to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security becomes even clearer when we consider the serious global threats facing our country today. For nearly 50 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism, has called our great country the ``Great Satan'' and indoctrinated generations of its people with the chants of ``Death to America,'' making clear its commitment to our destruction.
Despite repeated attempts at diplomacy, the regime has relentlessly pursued a nuclear weapon, developed its ballistic missile program, and funded proxy terrorist organizations across the world, all while its own people suffer under corruption, repression, and economic collapse.
This past Saturday, President Donald J. Trump kept his promise, decisively authorizing Operation Epic Fury, a large-scale kinetic military operation targeting key regime military infrastructure and leadership responsible for incessant aggression and attacks against the United States and our allies.
This moment did not occur in isolation. It was the result of decades of sustained hostility by the Iranian regime toward the United States, just as the maniacal Iranian regime was reaching the nuclear weapon threshold.
To the American people, the timeline is clear.
In November 1979, Iranian students, backed by the regime, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held hostage 66 brave Americans for 444 days as they beat them and subjected them to mock executions and other forms of torture.
In October 1993, Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, killed 241 American military servicemembers, including 220 marines and 21 other service personnel in a truck bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut.
In June 1996, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 500 others in a truck bombing at a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.
Between 2003 and 2011, Iranian proxies killed at least 603 American troops in Iraq, roughly one out of every six American combat deaths in that war.
In January 2016, Iranian forces seized two U.S. Navy boats and detained 10 U.S. sailors who were held at gunpoint, forced to kneel with their hands behind their heads, and filmed for propaganda being released 15 hours later.
More recently, on October 7, 2023, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists murdered 46 Americans and kidnapped 12 Americans in addition.
Between October 2023 and November 2024, Iran and its proxies carried out more than 180 attacks on U.S. forces in the region, killing American servicemembers and wounding American service personnel.
In July 2024, an Iranian national linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attempted to assassinate then-candidate for President, Donald J. Trump, forcing his Presidential campaign, which I remember being a part of it, to charter decoy planes to avoid the threat.
In recent weeks, Iranian representatives continued to lie and negotiate in bad faith, stalling peace talks as they prepared offensive military threats against American forces.
This pattern of aggression makes crystal clear that these are not isolated incidents. They instead represent a sustained and deliberate campaign by the Iranian regime to target the United States and undermine our national security.
This is precisely why decisive action by our Commander in Chief, President Donald J. Trump, was necessary. By destroying Iran's military capabilities, its missile capabilities, dismantling its naval strength, and ensuring that this regime can never obtain a nuclear weapon, President Trump and his administration have acted to protect the American people and defend our national interests. This level of action is only possible because of the strength of the United States military.
During his first term, President Donald J. Trump rebuilt our military to a level many thought would never be possible. Through historic investments, a renewed focus on modernization, and the restoration of military readiness, he ensured that today we possess the strongest and most capable military humanity has ever seen. It is that peace through strength, rebuilt and restored, that made decisive operations like Operation Epic Fury possible, demonstrating to our adversaries that the United States has both the capability and the resolve to act swiftly, effectively, and without hesitation to protect the citizens of our country.
Mr. Speaker, during this operation, six Americans bravely sacrificed their lives to keep our homeland safe. May we forever remember and honor their legacy of selfless service to these United States of America.
The threats facing our country today do not stop at distant battlefields. They can reach our networks, our borders, and our communities here at home.
While Iran's aggression is often discussed in terms of conflict in the Middle East, we must not forget that the regime and its proxies also pose a direct threat to the American homeland. Our Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies have warned that Iran and its affiliates maintain the capability to conduct cyberattacks against our utility services, direct espionage campaigns within our borders, and potentially inspire or direct violence within the United States, targeting critical infrastructure, financial systems, and other central networks on which millions of Americans rely.
That is why President Trump's Department of Homeland Security plays such a vital role in coordinating intelligence, strengthening cyber defenses, securing transportation systems, and protecting the American homeland from emerging threats.
Mr. Speaker, border security is homeland security. At a time when hostile regimes and terrorist networks continue to threaten the United States, we cannot ignore the risks posed by an unsecure border and inadequate vetting of individuals entering our country. Ensuring that terrorists, traffickers, and foreign operatives cannot exploit weakness in our immigration system is a fundamental responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.
While security at our southern border has drastically improved and more than 600,000 criminal aliens have been deported under President Trump's administration, millions of unvetted, illegal immigrants who entered our country during 4 years of the porous open border under the Biden administration still remain in the United States today.
Among these illegal immigrants are members of violent transnational gangs, some of which have ties to Iranian-backed terror networks who threaten the safety of American communities. At a time of heightened global tensions and increasing threats, the presence of even one dangerous individual within our borders poses a serious risk to America.
If we look at results here at home today, we have seen real progress in safety and security under President Trump, proof that his approach works and can be trusted abroad.
Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl deaths fell by 34 percent in 2025, as trafficking across our southern border was cut in half. Violent crime has declined nationwide, with homicides experiencing one of the largest single-year drops on record. In cities where enhanced enforcement has taken place, the results have been even more dramatic. Murders here in Washington, D.C., have dropped 60 percent. Chicago saw its lowest number of murders since 1965. Memphis saw 200 fewer murders and a 40 percent decline in shootings. New Orleans' homicide rate reached its lowest level in 50 years.
Mr. Speaker, these outcomes exemplify what strong leadership and commitment to law and order can achieve, but maintaining that progress requires a fully functional Homeland Security apparatus.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one thing clear for the record and for everyone who is watching today: Despite what some of my Democrat colleagues may be telling their constituents, as they fear primary challenges from the left, this debate is not about funding ICE or CBP. Those agencies were already fully funded through H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted last year.
This debate is about the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, the agencies responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, disaster response, aviation security, maritime security, and other critical missions that protect the American homeland.
By refusing to fund the remainder of the Department of Homeland Security, my Democratic colleagues have left critical Homeland Security missions vulnerable at a time when threats against our country are increasing. The consequences of that decision are already being felt.
Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, our country's cyber defenses remain weakened, leaving critical infrastructure like hospitals, water systems, and energy grids more vulnerable to attacks from adversaries like Iran.
Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, our Coast Guard faces disruptions to essential missions, like search and rescue, port security, and drug interdiction, while servicemembers in harm's way are left without the full support and pay that they deserve.
Due to Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, TSA officers who service airports like Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, as well as other airports across our country, are forced to work without pay, hurting morale, straining staffing, and increasing the risk of security gaps, delays, and disruptions in our airports.
Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, FEMA is stretched to its limits, jeopardizing disaster response, recovery efforts, and preparedness as severe weather threatens communities across the country.
Passage of the resolution today allows the House of Representatives to consider, debate, and pass legislation that ends this Democrat shutdown and fully funds the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that agencies charged with protecting the American people are equipped with the resources necessary to carry out their critical missions without disruption.
Mr. Speaker, protecting the American people should never be a partisan issue. Regardless of party, every Member of Congress has a responsibility to ensure the agencies tasked with defending our homeland have the resources they need to do their jobs.
It should really be that simple.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 1095 because it allows this House of Representatives to carry out its most fundamental duties: to govern, to safeguard the American people, and to confront the serious threats facing our country today with strength, clarity, and resolve.
A ``yes'' vote today allows us to end the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown and protects our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, six Americans are dead, and bombs are falling on our consulates and bases and allies because Trump has started what he has now said could be a, in his words, forever war. This is the same President who said: ``I am not going to start wars. I am going to end them.''
This is a President who has said America First means no more wars. This is a President who has betrayed--he has betrayed those people who voted for him expecting him to keep us out of wars.
He started this war as a matter of choice because he wanted to. We have heard over and over again that there was no imminent threat, which is the legal criteria. There was no congressional authorization.
Trump betrayed his own commitments, his own voters. Trump betrayed them and betrayed those Republicans who thought he was going to keep us out of war, so you would think that Republicans who control this House would bring us back into a session so we could address this war, so we could discuss: Is it legitimate? What can we do? How do we exercise our Article I power?
Why don't you all want to exercise the power that was given to you by your voters? That is not what we are doing today. Instead, we are here on a rule that has one bill, and that bill is so important. That is the only thing we are going to cover. But guess what. We already did it.
This is a rerun of a bad movie. It is a rerun because there is nothing in this bill that is not already in the bill that, as the gentleman pointed out, was already passed.
The only thing that has changed from when we last passed this very same bill a few weeks ago was that ICE and CBP have killed, arrested, detained, and terrorized more American citizens.
When we last passed this bill, Alex Pretti was alive. Alex Pretti had not been killed. Alex Pretti's Second Amendment rights were still being honored. That is what has changed. What has changed is more people have died in ICE custody.
What has changed is it has gotten only worse. We have seen ICE officials have to walk back their lies about their encounters with citizens who they have shot and beat up and arrested. That is the only thing we have seen since this bill was last passed.
The reality is that the only way to get DHS funded all together in a single bill is for the White House, Senate, and House to come to an agreement. They are in negotiations to do that, but this is the kind of thing where even though negotiations are going on, the House just wants to do the same thing over and over again.
Do you know what, do you remember that quote of when you do the same thing over and over again with the same results, it is actually a little bit of madness?
I put up this letter because, while House Republicans kind of don't understand where Americans are, this 7-year-old named Connor does. Connor sent me this letter where he says: ICE, no money. He put a whole bunch of zeros after it. He doesn't realize they get a lot more than the $1 billion that he set out here. As my colleagues noted, they are already fully funded. They have all that money from H.R. 1.
What Democrats have suggested is, since they already acknowledge--he said it on the floor--that they are fully funded, why don't we just pass a bill that funds FEMA, that funds Coast Guard, that funds these critical agencies over which there is no debate, no controversy, and no need for negotiations?
They rejected that amendment last night because if they really cared about funding these critical agencies, they would say let's fund them, and let's take up the issues of how we make sure that ICE and CBP protect Americans.
Not only is Connor worried, but a parent told me when I was back home that her child asked her two questions as they drove home from school one day. One question was: Mom, are elves real? The second question was: Mom, what do I do if ICE comes for me? What do I do if ICE comes for you?
This is a little Latina student, a citizen, somebody whose family has been in this country for generations, but they are terrified because if you look Latino, you are at risk.
They are unwilling to put any protections in to protect our families. They are unwilling to put any protections in to say: Don't go into our schools. Don't go into our hospitals. Don't go into our churches. Preserve the places where people should be able to go to feel safe.
For example, in Clovis, New Mexico, ICE broke a car window at a health clinic, a health clinic, and dragged the father away. The mother had to run into the health clinic to make sure that there were no glass shards on the baby's skin because that window had been shattered.
This is the kind of activity that they are condoning. That baby was lucky because we know that there are babies like 2-month-old Juan Nicholas in Texas who was sick in detention with bronchitis and almost near death and who was deported across the border without any money, without any people who he would know.
Thank heavens the goodness of the American people helped that baby out.
I could tell story after story that should make anybody who has a heart, conscience, or moral values based on any of our faith traditions cry and say: This is not an America we believe in.
At least 3,800 children under age 18, including 20 infants, were held in detention under the Trump administration in 2025 alone.
The cruelty continues far beyond those thousands of kids, and it is not just that they killed--they killed--citizen Alex Pretti and citizen Renee Good. This is a pattern and practice of ICE hurting our communities and violating the Constitution. Americans who believe in law and order, respect for constitutional rights, and who don't want government overreach should be and are, indeed, outraged.
However, today, Republicans are, once again, demanding more money for the Department of Homeland Security's ICE and CBP which they acknowledge has already been fully funded. In fact, we know that $150 billion of
Trump's chaos is everywhere. Trump's chaos comes with a price. It is Americans who pay that price. There is chaos abroad, chaos Congress did not authorize, and chaos at home.
Let's be clear about what is happening. While families are worried about rising costs and while servicemembers' lives are at risk, Republicans want to write another blank check to an agency that is already operating with historic, unprecedented funding.
How much is this chaos costing us?
That is the question we should be asking. We know just one piece of this war: The three F-15 aircraft shot down cost $300 million.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what that $300 million could do?
It could fund 23 years of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program, 3 years of childhood cancer and birth defects for just those three F-15s that they put at risk. It would fund the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for 1 year to connect Americans with lifesaving services and a compassionate counselor. Three of those planes would pay for another year of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, a fund that Trump wanted to zero out. He wanted to zero out this fund.
Think about it, Mr. Speaker.
What do those CDFIs mean?
They are your credit unions, the places where you get your loans for your cars and for your appliances or to help with your home. That is what he is willing to do because everything comes at a cost, and they are willing to pay money for this war of choice. That money could be better spent at home bringing down the cost of living for Americans.
We know that 60 percent of Americans support redirecting ICE funding to Medicaid because people want healthcare and stability, not raids, abuse, and chaos.
Republicans keep burning money. They keep burning money. They have that $4 trillion debt from their big, beautiful bill. We know the last time a Republican took us into war in the Middle East it cost trillions in our deficit. They are doing it again.
There they go. They are at it again.
What Democrats are asking for before we send more ICE funding is what all law enforcement uses: mandatory body cameras and judicial warrants before you break down somebody's door.
Every law enforcement in America does that.
Why can't they?
Democrats ask for no masks.
What law enforcement officers go around in masks except for theirs?
Democrats want no targeting of schools, hospitals, houses of worship, or polling places.
These are sensible, community-driven policies.
We are also asking that ICE follow the same constitutional principles that every other law enforcement agency follows.
Mr. Speaker, you can't just beat up, shoot, and kill people. It is not just Democrats saying this. Catholic bishops from border States and beyond are pleading with Congress to restore protections at places of worship, schools, and healthcare facilities so families can seek care, learn, and pray without fear.
If Republicans truly cared about security, then they would support these kinds of reforms.
Mr. Speaker, why don't you want to let people pray without fear, I ask?
Trump wanted the Department of War so he could wage war. Now he wants a reckless ICE to have dangerous amounts of money. However, Americans don't have to choose between national security and safety and constitutional protections. We can have all three. It just takes courage. It takes courage over chaos, not blank checks and not endless wars.
It is time to restore accountability before we write another blank check with a lot more zeros than poor Connor can even imagine.
Mr. Speaker, I was half hoping the gentlewoman from New Mexico was going to rise to thank us for giving her an opportunity to rectify the wrong she inflicted upon the Department of Homeland Security 3 weeks ago when they neglected to fund it, but based on her comments, it doesn't seem to be the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), who is a rising star in our Conference and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I rise today in support of the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 7744.
As America faces heightened threats on U.S. soil and abroad, DHS is in the midst of its second major shutdown in 6 months because of Democrats' political games.
This lapse in appropriations means a disruption in our Nation's disaster preparedness, transportation security, and critical infrastructure resilience when we need it most.
As a lifelong New Yorker, I find it outrageous that DHS continues to be undermined by Washington's dysfunction. Twenty-five years after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I urge my Democratic colleagues to not forget why this Department was established in the first place.
As we speak, the vast majority of DHS personnel are, once again, continuing their essential missions to protect the American people without knowing when their next paycheck will come, while others have been furloughed, further undermining our preparedness.
The frustrating reality is that this was completely avoidable. House Republicans sent this bipartisan and bicameral deal on full-year DHS funding to the Senate nearly 2 months ago. This bill includes funding for body cameras, support for the DHS Office of Inspector General, additional resources for training, and new transparency and oversight requirements for ICE.
By holding this bill up in the Senate, Democrats are also blocking funding for FEMA's preparedness, response, and recovery efforts across the country. They are blocking funding for TSA ahead of major events like the World Cup. Democrats are blocking funding for Coast Guard operations that we use to counter our adversaries. They are blocking our funding for our cybersecurity workforce while Iran is attacking us daily in our cybersecurity terrain.
The security of our homeland is not a partisan talking point. It is an American imperative. Holding DHS hostage when lives and livelihoods are on the line is reckless.
Mr. Speaker, I urge House Democrats to show their Senate counterparts that the right thing to do is support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Now that we are on the point of thank-yous, my colleague suggested that I get up and thank them for bringing this bill again.
I do think it is a waste of House resources doing the same thing over again.
However, I do thank the gentleman because we are able to make the point again to the American people about how bad ICE is. The American people agree with us that what ICE is doing is not American. It is not American to kill us point-blank--murders--for doing nothing more than using a phone to video what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026, a bill which fully funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and CBP. That is because we agree that we need to fund FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. There is no reason to have these important agencies tied to the funding for Trump's ICE cruelty agenda.
Indeed, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill to fund FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. Last night, at Rules, I tried to make her bill in order so the House could vote on it, so the House could say, yes, we believe in these agencies, and we want to fund them. Every single Republican in the committee voted against it.
Let's be honest about who is voting against funding for the Coast Guard, for TSA, and for these agencies. It is Republicans. Republicans voted against it last night, but we are going to ask Republicans once again: Will they vote to fund the Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA? We will ask whether they will vote for that because we are going to give them another opportunity to do that. We are going to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill, to discuss our proposal further.
Mr. Speaker, the bill at issue today is not a serious legislative effort. It is political theater.
Republican leadership is trying to use President Trump's aimless, costly, and illegal war with Iran to force through more funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection without the substantial changes that the vast majority of Americans believe those agencies need. It is a cynical effort, and it is one that will fail.
If Republicans are actually serious about the threat that President Trump's war with Iran has caused, then they would move quickly to bring up my bill. They rejected the amendment last night in the Rules Committee, but I will tell you what it would fund.
The bill would fund law-abiding components of DHS: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA; Disaster Relief Fund; Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; U.S. Coast Guard; Transportation Security Administration, TSA; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers; Science and Technology Directorate; Office of Inspector General; and Federal Protective Service. These are the agencies that are part of what we ought to be funding and could fund today if the Republicans wanted to do it.
Mr. Speaker, they do not want to do it because they support lawless, reckless agencies, ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. We can set those aside for further negotiations as those negotiations continue.
Unlike the bill Republicans have put forward, my measure actually has a good chance of passing if only the Republican leadership would allow it to come forward with a vote.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 7481, so that Members can vote to fund the law-abiding agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
There is broad agreement on the funding of these agencies. There is no controversy over any of them. There is significant controversy over ICE and Customs and Border Protection because they have beaten, detained, harassed, and even killed law-abiding U.S. citizens with zero accountability.
I ask my colleagues across the aisle, why not allow funding for the parts of Homeland Security that we have no disagreements over? Let's pass those, allow that disaster relief to be replenished, allow TSA and Secret Service agents to be paid, allow the Coast Guard to support its servicemembers, and ensure our cybersecurity measures are in place.
We are going to negotiate reforms to ICE and Customs and Border Protection. It is underway. What are those reforms? There is broad public support for prohibiting the detention or deportation of U.S. citizens and prohibiting operations at sensitive locations like schools and houses of worship.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, there is also support to require agencies to get a warrant from a judge before kicking in somebody's door, require the removal of masks, require badges and identification, allow independent investigations into wrongdoing, end racial profiling, and end roving patrols.
Let me just say what I am sick and tired of is listening to the crocodile tears that are being shed on the other side of the aisle for the Federal employees who work at these agencies. They couldn't care less.
I will give you examples. The President's budget had a $500 million cut to cybersecurity. Where were they when that happened? Where were they when President Trump and Kristi Noem talked about dismantling FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Where were they on all of these bills when their guru, Elon Musk, said a thousand people could go from the cybersecurity agency?
There wasn't a peep out of them for that. It is disingenuous. They know it. The public knows it. In fact, they want to support ICE and CBP, but they don't want to support the Federal employees. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), a member of our freshman class, one of the best- educated members of our Conference, and a champion debater.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today angry. I rise angry by the stunning disparity between the priorities of the two parties.
This week, Republicans' number one priority is to reopen the Department of Homeland Security because our homeland is under threat, whereas Democrats' number one priority, as we will see this afternoon, is to stop and protect those who would endanger our homeland.
The U.S. Coast Guard is actively in operations in Bahrain, protecting the United States, and every one of those brave individuals is not being paid. Not only that, but the DHS Office of Counterterrorism and Homeland Threats is not being paid to look after those who would threaten us in the United States.
What has changed in the last 3 weeks? Let me give you some examples. Today is March 4. Two days ago in Michigan, Islamic scholar and expert in Islam Hassanain Rajabali said the following about the killing of Khamenei: Why do we keep hearing our leaders--this is someone in America referring to Khamenei as ``our leader''--why are we hearing our leaders are being killed and the other side does not? It will come. Don't worry. ``Mahdi will cut tentacles of Rothschilds.''
We need Homeland Security to protect us from this guy.
On February 28, someone who came to Michigan in 1991, who got two degrees at American universities, Dearborn Heights Imam--a religious leader running a mosque--Mohammad Ali Elahi eulogized Khamenei: He would have loved to end his life this way--being killed by the most wretched hands on Earth--speaking about the United States. Even Democrats believe Khamenei was a bad guy. Nothing is greater than martyrdom after 86 years of service.
We need DHS to be funded to protect us from this guy.
Third example: A taxpayer-funded government employee working at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Ali Akbar Shdid: Trump made a huge mistake by killing our leader--again, ``our leader'' being Khamenei. He continued: We are going to continue on his path. We are going to hold his blood and ideology and teach it to our children.
We are paying for this. We need DHS to protect us from this guy. That is just Michigan.
State number two, California: February 28, someone who came from Iraq to the United States in 1994, another Muslim scholar, an expert in Islam, Dr. Sayed Moustafa Qazwini, a Ph.D.: I pray to exit life as a martyr. Like Khamenei, may Allah be pleased with him, not in bed, home, or hospital.
DHS needs to protect us from him.
Mr. Speaker, down the road in Virginia, a mosque in Manassas honoring what they call, again, our leader, Khamenei, extending condolences and glad tidings on his martyrdom.
By the way, these are not being captured with a hidden microphone. They are proudly broadcasting this.
In New York, Zohran Mamdani, February 20, attended a mosque with known ties to Iran and sat there as the imam prayed for the Mahdi to kill the infidels by his sword. We need DHS open to protect us from that.
This is personal for me. In Austin, a Muslim terrorist, who never should have been in this country, just killed three people, and I will talk about him in a bit.
He retweeted, commented on one of my tweets, upset about my criticism of the kind of terrorism that he so engaged in. I didn't find it. So lest any Member of Congress think these threats are not real, if they can do it to me, they can do it to any one of you.
I will close with this. We hear the names of the two who died in Minnesota, but how do we not say the names of Ryder Harrington, Savitha Shan, and Jorge Pederson, who were killed by that man in Austin.
We need the Department of Homeland Security open to protect us from them. How many Americans are going to die while the Department of Homeland Security is closed? We swore an oath to protect Americans, not to protect terrorists. We need to get the Department of Homeland Security open so that we can live up to that obligation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we can get DHS open if Republicans would vote to return this bill so that we could, indeed, fund FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the other agencies.
Let's talk a little bit about FEMA because what we are seeing this President do is use this moment to make life more miserable for Americans. FEMA has $4 billion in Disaster Relief Fund. Even though it has that money, DHS is shutting down assistance to victims. It is doing that even though it has the money.
This is just like what Trump did last time where he had the money for nutrition assistance to fund SNAP and he said no. I would prefer that children go hungry, even though I have the money in the bank.
This shouldn't be surprising given Secretary Noem's record. She has put roadblock after roadblock to actually let FEMA do work. She says anything over $100,000 has to come to my office. That didn't stop her from giving away several millions of dollars in ad funding to somebody related to her because this is, indeed, a corrupt administration. There is corruption at the highest level, and we see that over and over again.
When we talk about U.S. citizens harmed, let's talk about U.S. citizens harmed by our own agency.
Marimar Martinez was a teaching assistant. She was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in October. She was in a car. That agent said, bragging: ``I fired five rounds, and she had seven holes.'' He had to recant their allegations that she had done anything wrong.
George Retes, a former Army infantryman and disabled veteran, pulled out of his car telling ICE: I am a veteran. I am a citizen. He then spent time in detention. He came to the House and was a guest for the State of the Union Address. We got to meet him.
Peter Yazzie, a Navajo Nation, our first Americans, and Laguna Pueblo member, was detained by ICE members. He told them: I am a Native American. I have my Certificate of Indian Blood. He was detained, arrested, abused in that moment.
Jose Roberto ``Beto'' Ramirez, 20-year-old member of the Ojibwe Nation, was yanked from the passenger's seat of his aunt's car, slammed on the hood, handcuffed, and held in custody.
Aliya Rahman is a disabled social activist. She had her windows broken, pulled out by force, and experienced shooting pain.
These are citizens. These are citizens, and they don't seem to care. It is something when you can't control the horrible actions.
We condemn the terrorism. We condemn the Ayatollah. We condemn all of that. We don't control them, but we sure should control our own agents and our own agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to discuss more about this bill and what all this means. He has led and inspired us in so many different times, and I look forward to listening to him.
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the American people through you, so I address the Speaker and the American people.
You must be confused by this debate. We have two relatively new Members of the Congress who have spoken. I came in as Mr. Jack was speaking and he said that we need to open DHS. We certainly have agreement on about 80 percent of that, but the Republicans are saying unless you agree to 100 percent, we are not going to agree to opening DHS that ought to be opened during this time of war.
The Secret Service could be funded this afternoon. The Speaker just has to say the word because our side will vote to open up the agencies, but we have a difference of opinion with respect to two components of DHS that we believe are violating the Constitution of the United States.
We agree that we ought to open Secret Service. We agree that we ought to open FEMA. We agree that we ought to open cybersecurity, but what is your answer to saying: But if you don't do it all, we will not open those agencies and have the employees paid, who, of course, are critical employees.
You don't have an answer to that other than you want to muscle through something that has been questioned by many courts in this land.
Now let me read you a statement that was made by the border czar.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
After a court said you must do this, the border czar, Tom Homan, who was in Minneapolis, who--by the way, Border Patrol killed Alex Pretti. Here is what the border czar said. Perhaps you don't care, but he said this: ``I don't care what the judges think.'' ``I don't care . . . ''
Yes, we here on this floor, and the Democrats on the floor in the United States Senate believe that is improper policy for law enforcement to say, to do, to act, to threaten people with: I don't care what the judges say.
Bring Ms. DeLauro's bill to the floor. It will pass. It will pass this afternoon, and all of those agents you have mentioned will be funded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
In addition to that, I don't know that I have heard it mentioned, but in the bill that was passed earlier this year, DHS was funded. ICE was funded with $150 billion, so don't get on this floor and pretend that somehow it is not funded because that is not true.
Bring this bill to the floor. We agree on it overwhelmingly. Do not allow the disagreement to undermine the agreement we have, particularly at a time of war when we ought to be united.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to respond briefly, first and foremost, if the gentleman had listened to my opening remarks, as he suggested he did, he would know that we noted that we, in fact, funded CBP and ICE last year.
This is about funding the Coast Guard and TSA. This is what today's vote is about.
That is why we hear the consternation from the other side. It is because they take bad vote after bad vote after bad vote. We are giving them a chance to rectify that today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong), a friend before we both were elected to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan funding package for the Department of Homeland Security. It is regrettable that Senate Democrats chose to abandon a bipartisan and bicameral deal on full-year DHS funding, jeopardizing our safety and security here at home.
Today, we face growing threats as our Nation encounters the real danger posed by the Iranian regime, as well as other adversaries around the world. It is critical that we ensure the agencies tasked with protecting our Nation are fully operational, are at full strength, and have the resources needed to neutralize any potential threats to our homeland.
As congressional Democrats continue to play partisan games, they are weakening our cybersecurity operations,
This is the second time in the past 4 months that TSA workers are working without pay. During the last shutdown, TSA saw increased rates of unscheduled absences and localized spikes in wait times, which are expected again during the shutdown as spring travel begins to rise.
In my home State of California, we continue preparations to host major international events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which begins this coming June, followed by the 2028 Summer Olympic Games. The World Cup will be the largest sporting event in history, with upward of 5 million international fans traveling to the United States.
The safety and success of these global events hinge on DHS' ability to maintain mission readiness. The longer this partial shutdown continues, the weaker our ability to prepare for these events becomes. To delay any longer is to risk the lives of countless Americans and millions of international visitors alike.
This week, the House will vote once again to reopen DHS and reaffirm its commitment to public safety. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us in voting to reopen the Department of Homeland Security so it can get back to its core mission of safeguarding American communities.
Mr. Speaker, frankly, these new Members of Congress apparently don't know what I am saying. We will vote to open DHS, including the Secretary's office, this afternoon, 1 hour from now, 2 hours from now. Bring it to the floor. Do not put in it what we all call a poison pill, and that is two components that are already funded--already funded.
Democrats and Republicans together can start paying the others today, but for the objection to the unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is disappointing that the gentleman from Maryland refers to funding our Border Patrol and funding those who keep our borders safe as poison pills. That is his prerogative, not mine.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), a member of our freshman class, one of the highest ranking female military officers in the history of the House of Representatives, a combat veteran, and a lieutenant colonel.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for recognizing me.
Mr. Speaker, America has dealt a clear and decisive blow to the Iranian terrorist regime. In times like this, we have to stay vigilant here at home. Rogue terrorists look for ways to strike back and create chaos. In some cases, they already have.
Right now, the Department of Homeland Security is shut down. Think about that. At a time when the threat of terrorism is real and rising, those on the other side of the aisle have left the agency responsible for protecting our homeland just hanging out to dry for nearly a month.
Americans should not be alarmed, but they should take note of who prioritizes Americans' safety. DHS secures our border. DHS works to stop terrorist threats. DHS supports the law enforcement officers who keep our communities safe.
Letting it stay shut down is reckless. Stop the partisan games and protect Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is personal for me. I am a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard. I still currently serve. Should I be called up, my go-bag is packed and ready.
Serving as a medical crew director in the back of an aircraft in hostile environments, I have looked wounded servicemembers in their eyes as I cared for them. As a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, I have seen these warriors return home with tremendous weight and trauma on their minds and in their hearts and the weight of the world on their shoulders.
When we talk about supporting and praying for our troops, this isn't theoretical for me. I have lived it. Quite honestly, it is why I am here in Congress. Our men and women in uniform deserve a Congress that has their backs.
Mr. Speaker, when some of those on the other side second-guess and even go as far as telling our military to disregard their orders, that is not leadership.
Under President Trump's leadership, America dealt a decisive blow. For nearly 50 years, the Iranian regime fueled terrorism. It backed proxy militias and threatened Americans and our allies. Their chants of ``death to America'' have never been symbolic. They have been backed by violence and a relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.
President Trump made it clear that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon. He gave their leaders a chance to negotiate. They chose deception. They chose delay.
When diplomacy failed, the President acted to protect the American people. That sends a message far beyond Tehran. Russia is watching. China is watching. Every adversary testing Americans' resolve is watching.
There is peace through strength. It protects American lives, and it keeps our country safe.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record this MSN article titled: ``Kash Patel's latest firings ousted agents with expertise in Iran.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Speaker, is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Kash Patel's Latest Firings Ousted Agents With Expertise in Iran
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we also know the Trump administration, in addition to getting rid of those with expertise in Iran, also appointed a 22-year- old to head DHS' counterterrorism office.
When we talk about making America less safe, it is the Trump administration that is making America less safe. It is the Trump administration, by going to war in Iran after promising he
We can also talk about how he is also betraying not just his promise of no foreign intervention and wars, but he is betraying his promise to lower costs because now we are seeing gas prices surge. Americans know this.
It is this administration. It is the Trump administration that is making their gas prices go up. It is his tariffs that are making their gas prices go up. He is costing Americans money, and he is making their world less safe.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy), a member of our freshman class who traveled earlier this year to Central America to review the threats to our national security that these transnational gangs posed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack), for the privilege of being able to speak on this really important topic today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to put a stop to yet another Democrat/Schumer shutdown and fund the Department of Homeland Security at this critical time. We all know and Democrats know that shutdowns are bad for the American people. That has been true regardless of which party has caused them.
Democrats have now shut down the government twice in the span of 4 months, holding the American people's safety hostage to their policy demands.
We have just heard Democrats admit responsibility for this nonsensical shutdown on this floor today. House Republicans negotiated in good faith with House and Senate Democrats and produced a clean, bipartisan funding bill for all of the Departments. That is how this process is supposed to work.
ICE is already funded and operational, exposing the Schumer shutdown as a political stunt more than anything else. What has actually been left without funding is the Coast Guard, TSA, and FEMA, the agencies that keep us safe when disaster strikes. The agencies on the front lines of American safety are now in limbo over a political standoff that never should have happened.
Even more troubling is the fact that the agency tasked with keeping Americans safe from terrorism is defunded when we face terrorist threats from Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my Democratic friends and colleagues: Stop the games. End the shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record the February 2026 PBS News article titled: ``Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say ICE has gone too far in immigration crackdown.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say ICE Has Gone Too Far in
Mr. Speaker, we just heard from another Republican saying that ICE is already fully funded. So what they should do is take up the Democratic proposal to fund the other agencies. They have acknowledged it over and over again today.
All that we need to do to fund the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA is to take up our proposal. They are refusing to do so. When they refuse to do so, they are causing the shutdown because I must say it again: What Democrats are asking is simply that ICE follow the Constitution.
Not only are Republicans inflicting harm on FEMA, TSA, and others, but they are refusing to follow the Constitution. They are refusing to have their law enforcement comply with law enforcement everywhere.
That is why Democrats are saying ``no.'' We are with Americans when we say that this terror that ICE has inflicted on Americans has to stop.
We are also saying that Congress should do its job and step in and say that we insist that they not violate our Constitution. We should step in and do our job of saying that we insist that Congress discuss and decide whether we should enter into a costly war in the Middle East, which is what they are allowing to go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, vote against the rule, and vote for the Democratic proposal to fund FEMA and the Coast Guard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the rule I have presented today allows the House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and to govern in an orderly and responsible manner for the American people.
As a reminder, a ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that will fully end the Democratic shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and allows us in this body to restore funding for the agencies responsible for protecting the American people.
A ``yes'' vote on this rule ensures that the men and women serving on the front lines of our homeland security, from coastguardsmen and TSA officers to cyber defenders, law enforcement personnel, and emergency responders, have the resources and support that they need to carry out their critical missions.
A ``yes'' vote on this rule strengthens the security of the American homeland by restoring funding for the agencies responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, disaster response, and maritime security, at a time when threats to our country are increasing.
As I made clear earlier, a ``yes'' vote on this rule ensures that the rest of the Department of Homeland Security can continue its vital work, even as ICE and CBP have already been funded through H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Finally, a ``yes'' vote on this rule allows the House to fulfill its most basic responsibility to govern and to ensure the safety of the American people is never used as a political bargaining chip.
Mr. Speaker, the consequences of leaving the Department of Homeland Security unfunded are too serious to ignore. This rule allows the House to act to restore full funding and to ensure that the agencies tasked with protecting the American people can carry out their missions without further disruption.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 1095 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5- minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
Motions to suspend the rules and pass:
S. 723; and
H.R. 6472.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 208, not voting 11, as follows:
Messrs. SUOZZI and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CLINE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 723) to require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process and complete all mortgage packages associated with residential and business mortgages on Indian land by certain deadlines, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 384, nays 40, not voting 8, as follows:
Mrs. CAMMACK changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Territorial Student Access to Higher Education Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6472) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in-state tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 351, nays 72, not voting 9, as follows:
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote during the vote series today. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted: NAY on roll call No. 79, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1095; NO on roll call No. 80, Passage of H. Res. 1095; YEA on roll call No. 81, passage of S. 723; YEA on roll call No. 82, passage of H.R. 6472; and YEA on roll call No. 83, Motion to Refer H. Res. 1100.
Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted: NAY on Roll Call No. 79, NO on Roll Call No. 80, YEA on Roll Call No. 81, YEA on Roll Call No. 82, and YEA on Roll Call No. 83.
Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes today due to a personal family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 79, AYE on Roll Call No. 80, YEA on Roll Call No. 81, YEA on Roll Call No. 82, and YEA on Roll Call No. 83.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 1099) reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 20 minutes.
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 the measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very simple. It is reaffirming that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Why is Iran the largest state sponsor of terrorism? Why is that something that is said? Why must we reaffirm this?
It is because they have spent the last 47 years targeting and attacking the United States of America every single chance that they have.
In April of 2025, Houthi terrorists attacked the USS Harry Truman, causing a U.S. fighter jet to sink into the ocean.
In June of 2025, Iran-backed militias attacked at least three U.S. bases in Syria and two bases in Iraq.
In January of 2024, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed three U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 more in a drone attack against tower 22 at a military base in Jordan.
Before that, Iran-backed militias wounded three U.S. servicemembers in an attack at Erbil Air Base in Iraq.
Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7 massacre.
Just prior to that, President Biden unfroze $6 billion of Iranian assets. That doesn't make them the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but I just thought it is an interesting point to put into the timeline.
Before that, an Iranian drone attack killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor in a drone strike on a coalition base in Syria.
Before that, an IRGC captain orchestrated the killing of an American citizen in Baghdad.
Before that, an Iranian rocket attack killed an American citizen in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Before that, Iran-backed militias wounded two U.S. servicemembers in a series of rocket and drone attacks against U.S. Forces in Iraq and Syria.
Before that, an Iran-backed militia fired a rocket at coalition forces in Erbil, Iraq, wounding a U.S. servicemember and four U.S. civilian contractors.
Before that, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. servicemembers in a rocket attack at K-1 Air Base, Kirkuk, Iraq.
Before that, Iran held 10 U.S. Navy sailors at gunpoint, on their knees, on the deck of an Iranian boat.
Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed an American citizen and his wife in a drive-by shooting.
Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed two American citizens serving in the IDF.
The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, pages and pages of Iran killing Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying something that should not be controversial at all in this House. In fact, it has been the position of this House throughout. The Iranian regime is a malign, nefarious, and deadly actor. It has appointed terrorist groups on militias across the Middle East, slaughtered its own people, quashed dissent, and threatened Americans and our interests for decades.
Members of both sides of the aisle know this. Congress has said it many times before. In fact, during my years in Congress, this body has passed dozens of resolutions and laws recognizing Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. There is no dispute there. This is not a dispute.
Let us be honest about what this resolution is. It is not new policy. It is not new information. It does nothing to protect a single American, servicemember, or ally. I think it is about politics. Maybe it is a stunt because of what Members are going to debate right after this. I don't think this accomplishes what Chairman Mast or the Republicans think it does, because in no way does this have any effect on the War Powers Resolution debate later today.
People can agree--and we all do--and we all know that Iran is bad. People also should agree that the President should come to Congress if he wants to make the case for war. These two truths are not incompatible.
For decades, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to counter Iran's dangerous behavior. Congress has imposed layer after layer of sanctions, disrupted terrorist financing networks, strengthened regional partnerships, and worked with our allies to constrain Iran's nuclear program.
Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has often upended or ignored bipartisan work: for example, when he pardoned the founder of Binance, an enabler of the Iran regime that allowed his company to be used to fund Iran's terror proxies.
Past efforts were designed to contain and deter Iran's threats while protecting Americans' interests in avoiding a broader regional war.
Today, Americans find ourselves in a very different situation. At President Trump's own behest, the United States is now engaged in direct military conflict with Iran, a conflict that was initiated without congressional authorization and without a clear explanation to the American people for what the endgame is.
To be clear: No one in this Chamber doubts the danger posed by the Iranian regime. Recognizing that threat does not mean abandoning our Constitution. It does not mean Congress should surrender its responsibility to debate and authorize war. It certainly does not mean we should walk blindly into a conflict with a deadly serious adversary without our own serious or clear strategy for what comes next.
The stakes here are not symbolic. They aren't talking points.
American servicemembers are in harm's way. The Middle East is on the brink of a wider conflict. The consequences of a war with Iran could shape the region--and American security--for decades.
Instead of debating yet another resolution stating something that we all already know, this body should be asking some real questions: What are the objectives of this war? What is the strategy for preventing regional escalation? What is the plan for the day after? What will this cost the American people? The American people deserve those answers, and Congress deserves a vote. Our constituents are waiting to hear.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague across the aisle for the agreement that we have on this. To quote my colleague just now: There is no dispute that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terror.
He may not expect me to agree on this, but I would also agree with him on this point: There is absolutely nothing that this resolution is going to do to protect any American or any American servicemember, nor any previous piece of paper, strongly worded letter, or anything else that this body has done that has been successful in protecting America from the largest state sponsor of terror. It is only two actions: number one, President Trump putting Qasem Soleimani into about five separate pieces on the side of an Iraqi tarmac; and, number two, the actions that President Trump has taken in this operation to destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch an American or has reached out and touched an American. Those are the only two things that will protect America from this imminent, ongoing, and undisputed threat.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brian Mast for yielding me time. I am grateful to support the resolution of Chairman Brian Mast.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the world watched President Donald Trump take courageous action against the murderous regime in Tehran; eliminating Khamenei with senior Iranian regime leaders, the architect of decades of terror, repression, and aggression, killing thousands of Americans and allies over the years. The removal of this brutal dictator marks a pivotal moment in the long struggle against a regime that has destabilized the Middle East and threatened global security for more than four decades, repressing the great people of Iran.
Additionally, with the removal of the Syrian dictator Assad, who has fled to Moscow, appropriately, to be with war criminal Putin, we now have a new government in Syria with Ahmed al-Sharaa. With that government, President Donald Trump is leading a bipartisan effort to give Syria a chance and give the Middle East a chance for peace and prosperity. Again, it is bipartisan, working together.
My appreciation of the courageous decision by President Donald Trump to remove the dictatorship in Tehran is personal. I have four sons who have served overseas facing the Iranian IEDs, drones, snipers, and missile attacks. Alan served in Iraq field artillery with cross-country convoys, receiving a Combat Action Badge. Add was a Navy doctor in Bagdad. Julian was a signal officer in Egypt with Bright Star, and Hunter served as an engineer for a year in Afghanistan.
The American people have never forgotten the crimes of the Iranian regime. From the 1979 seizure of the embassy in Tehran and the disgusting hostage crisis that led to 52 Americans being captive for 444 days, freed by President Ronald Reagan, to decades of sponsoring terrorism through puppets such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis, Iranian leadership has consistently chosen mass murder over peace and prosperity.
President Trump is sending a clear message that those who threaten the United States, our partners, and allies will ultimately be held accountable even after 47 years.
While this operation marks a historic strategic victory, it also comes at a solemn cost. Six brave American servicemembers have lost their lives, with many wounded. We mourn their sacrifice. These men and women stood on the front lines of freedom to destroy the Iranian missile threat, sinking the Iranian navy, and by permanently ending the Iranian nuclear capability.
As the Iranian people look to the future, the American people will stand with the Iranian people for freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Today, we honor the courage of our troops, reaffirm our commitment to our allies, and recognize the leadership of President Donald Trump in confronting a maniacal regime. America remains vigilant, resolute, and committed to defending freedom wherever it is threatened.
Mr. Speaker, 47 years--I am going to say it again: 47 years. That is how long this evil regime has waged war not only against the West and our allies but Americans.
Whether it be the Beirut bombing, whether it be the hostages, or whether it be the violation of our own sovereign territory of our embassies, make no mistake about it: It was Iran and their regime that actually waged war against America--far longer than the strategic strikes to eliminate the imminent threat that this regime posed.
My colleague from Florida has pointed out all the different occasions in which this regime has targeted Americans. Let me point out the fact that not only are they engaged in the illicit trade and drug trafficking of Captagon, not only are they going ahead and leveraging sanctioned oil to countries like China and others to fund these proxy militias--we are talking about the worst of the worst, including the Houthis over in Yemen and Hamas, which indiscriminately murdered, raped, and showed barbarism on October 7 in Israel.
Look at Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah, who was responsible not only for the slaughtering of Christians in Lebanon but also for the targeting of Americans with the expansion of their militias in Iraq.
Hashd al-Shaabi and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq are responsible for more attacks against American troops and contractors, as well as for rocket attacks on our embassies, than any other.
The list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. We can talk about the fact that we want to go back to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 responsibilities of declarations of war, but I would argue that my colleague on the left has also voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force as an abdication of those responsibilities.
I would also argue the fact, as the chairman had talked about, while you are right that a piece of paper isn't going to change things, it sends a clear message that this body stands unified in acknowledging that this state sponsor of terror will not have a reign any longer, thanks to President Donald J. Trump and the decisive action to guarantee that their nuclear enrichment program will not continue to thrive. Their mid-range ballistic missiles, their long-range ballistic missiles, and their ICBMs will not threaten American lives any longer.
Our servicemembers who are deployed in the region can sleep peacefully at night knowing that they are not going to have Shahed-136s or other attack drones killing them in their sleep.
I would also go ahead and iterate the fact that I can guarantee the six new Gold Star families and those six new heroes will be proud to know that we haven't forgotten and that we are going to continue to acknowledge that this evil regime is the greatest state sponsor of terror.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank the chairman for giving me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I approach this debate from a very simple perspective: When people say they want to kill you, you should believe them.
For 47 years, the Iranian Government in their version of this Hall, on the streets, on television, anywhere they can find, has yelled ``death to America.'' They don't just yell it. They actually do it. Over those 47 years, it is estimated that 1,200 Americans have been killed by those saying ``death to America.''
Not all of those were military. On October 7, Hamas, directly funded by Iran, killed 46 Americans--46.
We hear a lot about how bad they are. We can agree they are bad, but there is always a ``but''--``but we shouldn't do anything,'' I guess.
Again, I believe that when someone tells you thousands of times over 47 years that they want to kill you, you should believe them.
This resolution makes a simple premise that we cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Why? We cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons because of the second thing Iran seeks to do: create missile capability to deliver those missiles to the United States of America. We have to stop them from creating the missile shield, the drones, and the shorter missiles that they can use to overwhelm our forces in the region, that gives them a shield to continue to deliver those weapons.
We have a choice. We can say: Well, they say ``death to America,'' but they aren't really going to do it, or we can realize they have given us 1,200 reasons over the last 47 years to believe them.
I hope this passes unanimously. It certainly should. It is three lines long, this resolution. It says that: ``The House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States that Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism.'' That is all it does.
If you believe like I do when people say ``death to America'' you should believe them, then you should vote for this, and this should be an easy vote. I thank the chairman for bringing this up today, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it.
Mr. Speaker, while we all in this body mourn the deaths of our six heroes, we should remember that earlier, as a deputy commander of the Special Forces of Iraq, I lost many friends as a result of Iran sponsoring weapons targeting. One of them was Command Sergeant Michael Stack killed by Iranian weapons and targeting in April 2004.
We should also recognize in Gaza the murder of over 2,000 innocent civilians in unspeakable ways would not have
Iran is an evil empire--not the people--the Khamenei regime, which controls their great Iranian people and does not allow prosperity. This resolution is pretty simple: for us all to recognize that evil exists, and the Khamenei regime is the epitome of evil.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I made very clear that there is no disagreement in Congress that Iran is a bad actor. It is a state sponsor of terror.
I have said it over and over again in my career, and I think every Member of Congress has said it over and over again. That is really not what this concurrent resolution is really about. This resolution really is a stunt meant to try to cast a shadow on the imminent Iran War Powers Resolution debate that is going to follow this. This came up today, just at the last minute, to try to throw it in specifically because of the debate.
Both things can be true, Mr. Speaker. Congress can recognize that Iran is a bad actor, as we have done multiple times, and the President of the United States cannot unilaterally drag our country into war without congressional deliberation, debate, and authorization.
The Constitution of the United States of America says that only Congress can declare war. So that is what the next debate will be all about.
Do we want to live up to what we took an oath of office and take a vote for the American people to see where everyone stands and to be sure that we are not giving away our power to the executive branch of government and that we in Congress are going to do our job that the Constitution states that we should do?
If the Constitution wanted one person to make that decision, then it would have so stated.
Yes, I will be voting for this resolution, absolutely, 100 percent. I have voted for so many other similar resolutions over the years. However, I plan to also do my constitutional duty to take my responsibility, not to give it away to the executive branch of government and not to shrink from my responsibilities. I plan also on voting for the War Powers Resolution on Iran in the debate immediately following this resolution which we have passed numerous times in this House.
It is a stunt, but, unfortunately, that is where we are, as opposed to doing real business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond to some of these comments as well. My colleague has said things that we agree on: Iran is a bad actor, and Iran is a state sponsor of terror. He said that there is no dispute about these things.
My colleague has also said that he will vote for the upcoming War Powers Resolution. There is not a resolution that is coming before us that gives the President any authority or authorizes the military to defend the United States of America in any way, shape, or form against that threat that there is no dispute about, that bad actor, as it was characterized, that state sponsor of terror that everybody agrees on.
There is no War Powers Resolution coming that says: Go out there, and under these parameters, defend the United States of America.
President Trump is utilizing his Article II authority, his constitutional Article II authority, to defend the United States of America against that imminent threat that we agree upon.
What my colleagues ask is that the President do nothing to defend the United States of America.
My colleague talked about this resolution that outlines all of these historical actions and that we affirm Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror. It does nothing. He acknowledges he has voted on resolutions just like that many times. That is true. Nothing has happened until we have President Trump willing to utilize his Article II authority to defend the United States of America against an imminent threat.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror. Apparently, many of our colleagues have forgotten that they have voted on that, have forgotten that that is the case, have forgotten that that is the enemy that comes against us, and have forgotten that they pose that imminent threat against us every single day utilizing every single opportunity that they can to attack Americans.
I will close with this, Mr. Speaker: I thank President Trump for the first time avenging every single American who has been killed by the hand of Iran. That was not the purpose of this operation, but it is the purpose of my personal thanks.
Thank you, President Trump, for avenging every servicemember who was killed by the hand of Iran, every contractor, every civilian who has been harmed throughout the Middle East, and every person wrongfully detained.
For every single person killed by that hand of Iran, I thank you, President Trump, for finally stepping up and defending the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1099).
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(C) of the War Powers Resolution to Remove United States Armed Forces From Unauthorized Hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of March 3, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of March 3, 2026, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 60 minutes.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration exhausted every single diplomatic effort that they could with Iran, as did previous administrations. Iran would not see reason. Operation Epic Fury is a legal and necessary exercise of Article II authority to address the imminent threat posed by Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in Donald Trump's own words and the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's own words, the United States is at war with Iran.
The question is: Did Congress authorize the war as the Constitution requires?
Did the President present anything before Congress?
Did the Congress have any debate?
Did any administrative authority come before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify?
The answer to that is no.
The question is: Was there any imminent threat requiring the use of force?
The administration has not presented one. In fact, the word ``imminent'' does not appear even once in the administration's own war powers notification. Mr. Speaker, you can't find the word ``imminent.''
Did the Trump administration even bother making the case to the American people or to Congress? Just 8 days ago, during the State of the Union Address, the most visible platform a President has, he could have laid out the rationale for military action, as other Presidents have. Instead, Iran was just a footnote in a record-long speech.
This is a war of choice that was launched by this administration without authorization, without clearly stating objectives or a defined endgame, and without explaining how they intend to keep Americans safe.
The chaos unleashed will not be borne by the President's family. It will be borne by our men and women in uniform who will face retaliation from Iran and its proxy networks. It will be borne by innocent civilians at heightened risk of attacks from Iran's aligned terrorist cells. It will be borne by American families paying more for groceries, for electricity, and for gasoline, all for Donald Trump's war of choice.
Americans woke up on Saturday to the news that the United States is again at war in the Middle East. They don't know for how long because the President has not articulated a clearly defined endgame. Military action without a defined strategy invites escalation, mission creep, and failure. We should have learned this lesson already. Why? We should have learned it already from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.
As Benjamin Franklin once said: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
This War Powers Resolution is simple. This is not a vote on Authorization for Use of Military Force. This simply demands that the President of the United States come to Congress, as our Constitution demands, to seek authorization for what he, himself, has described as a war.
Just abide by the Constitution. We all bring our hands up and swear when we are sworn in and say we will abide by the Constitution. You would think that the President of the United States would do just that.
This War Powers Resolution does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not stop the President from responding to an imminent attack. It does not limit us from protecting our troops.
I have served in Congress for 28 years, and I have been in this Chamber as this body has done its most sacred and serious work deliberating whether to send our American servicemembers into harm's way. It is a difficult vote. It is a serious vote. Probably--not probably--without question, the hardest votes that I have ever had to take, but that is my responsibility. I took a pledge to the Constitution that I would follow it.
I was here for the vote after 9/11 to go into Afghanistan, a heavy decision. The President brought information in. We had dialogue. We had conversation. We had debate. We did something else. In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we had hearings. We had administration officials come in.
I wasn't even the ranking member or the chair or anything else. I was just a member of the committee. I could call the administration and say: I need to speak to a Deputy Secretary or the Secretary, and they would come into my office, and we would have this dialogue to determine whether or not we were going to go into this war.
Has that happened now? For over a year, for all the times, not once, not once have we had a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We have asked to have individuals who were negotiating. Unfortunately, some of them are not employed by the State Department, et cetera, like Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff, who all are friends of the President's, basically real estate negotiators who were just half an hour in Geneva, flipping back and forth from two major negotiations. If it was serious, I wouldn't have been in the White House, when the President was supposed to have been honoring individuals after we had lost the lives of six servicemembers, talking about curtains and how I redecorated the White House. This is too serious a decision for me and I would hope for the President of the United States also.
Getting the facts in Iraq, the Secretary of State came before and testified, went before the U.N., talked to the American people. Now, I disagreed because I didn't see the connections after I got the information on Iraq, so I voted no. I agreed on Afghanistan. However, the point here is, the President obeyed the Constitution because he came to Congress first and allowed the Members of Congress to make a determination.
What has happened year after year in my time here, I have watched Congress gradually relinquish its authority on matters of war to the executive branch. We have allowed overly broad Authorizations for the Use of Military Force to remain on the books. We have permitted Presidents of both parties to commit forces without a vote. This war with Iran is the most extreme example of that abdication.
The Framers rejected the idea of a king, meaning one person making a decision without consultation, without giving any reason to this body. It was absolutely rejected. We are not under an authoritarian government, like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin can go to war and he doesn't have to worry about the Duma. They are not a body that has the responsibility that we have in this Congress, so he can go on and fight a war that he has created without worrying about having to talk and being accountable to anyone.
Our Founding Fathers did not want that. They didn't want a king. That is why we were created as a body. It is long past time for us to reclaim and stand up for that authority, for I tell you, even though he may want to think he is, Donald Trump is not a king.
If he believes the war with Iran is in our national interests, then he must come to Congress and make the case.
We have had three scenarios. The so-called Gang of Eight met once. Then they got another phone call right beforehand. Then the so-called Gang of 20 met once. That is all we have heard from the President.
I oppose this war of choice, but guess what, Mr. Speaker, each Member here must make clear with their own vote where they stand on that decision.
The President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission and without a coherent strategy and without a defined endgame.
Some Members of Congress may decide after they see everything--we may not see it together in the same way, but the evidence and the case comes here and then we take a vote. As was the occasion for me back in 2003, I voted one way, and the majority voted another way. The President had the authority. Another time, I voted the way the majority voted. But each time they came to us. That is what this debate is about and that is what we need to do.
Now, as I see this, the President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission, without a coherent strategy, and without a defined endgame. This open-ended, undefined military engagement is precisely what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain. We are not the Iranian Parliament. We are not a rubberstamp Congress, or at least we shouldn't be a rubberstamp Congress. However, in this scenario, we see that whatever this President wants, my colleagues on the other side will just rubberstamp it.
We should be a coequal branch of government, and our duty is not optional. It was written in the Constitution. The Framers gave Congress this authority because they believed no single person should have the power to take this Nation to war alone.
Today, we either defend the principle or we surrender it. I choose to defend the Constitution and defend the principle and do my job that I put my hand up and swore I would. Hard votes, easy votes, I will take them all because that is what I swore an oath to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about choices. Defending yourself is a choice. It is a choice that not everybody makes. Some people, instead of defending themselves, curl up into a corner and cry and turn their eyes. Some people stand up and step into the fight and make the tough choice of going through the battles that it takes to defend yourself.
I will thank, again, President Trump for defending America from an imminent threat, an imminent threat that no other President has had the guts to stand up to.
What is that imminent threat? What was that imminent threat that President Trump is doing his duty, his constitutional duty, his Article II authority to defend America against?
I will tell you it is something that almost every single Member of Congress has literally agreed upon up until President Trump decided to defend America.
Previously, almost every Member of Congress voted to call Iran the largest state sponsor of terror, and tomorrow we will cast a vote on what was just debated about reaffirming that they are the largest state sponsor of terror.
Nearly all Members unanimously voted to condemn their continuous funding of terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. What does that mean? It means they give them money. They give them weapons. They give them training. They give them direction on where to find and how to kill Americans, and then they reward them for doing that. Almost every Member of Congress has voted unanimously to condemn that.
It was almost a unanimous vote calling their nuclear program a massive threat to the United States of America. My colleague over there voted in the affirmative on that. Almost every one of us voted to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
Those votes didn't just happen for no reason. We have seen Iran as an imminent threat against America, not just for the last 4 days, not just for the last 4 months, or 4 years, but for the last 40 years.
Why do they continue to be an imminent threat? Because they have never faced an imminent response until President Trump. Instead, we told them--when I say ``we,'' I could say America, but really it was my Democrat colleagues that told them this. They told them how much uranium they could enrich instead of they can't do it, period. We told them when they could have a nuclear weapon instead of no. On top of that--again, I say ``we'' because it is America, but it was really my Democrat colleagues--gave them pallets of cash. That is a fact.
I especially, as many of my other colleagues, wouldn't take this away from anybody here. No one wants to see our military go into ``combat,'' ``war,'' ``conduct combat operations,'' ``battle,'' or whatever word somebody wants to use to describe it. I do not want to see conflicts end in casualties.
I wear many names on my wrist of friends that I have lost, but Iran's terror, which has caused the death of thousands of Americans, has to stop. They don't warn us when they are going to kill Americans. They are an imminent threat. They look for a surprise. They look for an opportunity, any weakness, any moment that they can go out there and attack us. They are an imminent threat. There has proven no other way to stop this imminent threat, not by negotiation, not by accord, and not by summit.
Let us talk about this imminent threat. Three U.S. soldiers killed at Tower 22 a year and a half ago: Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett, and Sergeant Rivers. This is an imminent threat. Countless civilian vessels targeted by Iranian drones. That is what an imminent threat looks like.
This one just pisses me off beyond belief. Ten U.S. Navy sailors captured and held on their knees at gunpoint by the Iranian Navy. This is an imminent threat.
The October 7 attack, killing 1,200 civilians, including 46 Americans, was supported by Iran. Again, that is an imminent threat.
This is very personal to me. Iran's killing of an estimated one in six American servicemembers in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. That is an imminent threat.
Beyond that, U.S. fighter jets lost, sunk off one of our carriers in the Red Sea because of Houthi attacks. That is an imminent threat. If you ask an American whether they want war or combat--you can ask me that question. I would say no. I don't want it. I have been in it.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want it for my children. We do want the President to stop Iran's imminent threats.
If I asked if anyone wants combat, anybody with sense would say no.
What do people want us to do if there are 10 American Navy men and women put on their knees at gunpoint by Iran? They want us to take care of that. Do they want us to go into combat? No, they do not.
What do people want us to do if there are three American servicemembers killed at Tower 22 by that imminent threat? They want us to take care of that. This is what taking care of that looks like.
President Trump has been clear, consistent, and transparent. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. He made every effort to address this through diplomatic means.
Let me quote directly from a resolution that Democrats, including my colleagues, overwhelmingly supported: ``The House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States . . . to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.''
Leader Jeffries voted on it. Ranking Member Meeks voted on it. Speaker Emerita Pelosi voted on it. Did they not believe it when they voted on it? Did they not read it? Did they not understand ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon''?
We all know Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States. The only difference now is that President Trump is sitting in office.
Right now, our military is shooting down Iranian missiles and drones that are targeting Americans in the region. If Democrats had their way and this
While this does not fit the narrative of my Democrat colleagues, President Trump had the authority to get the job done under Article II of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
He has been transparent with this Congress. Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and CIA Director Ratcliffe have all conducted now three specific briefs, making our objective clear: destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch Americans or has been used to reach out and touch Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all I will say is that if Iran has been an imminent threat for 47 years, the word ``imminent'' then loses all meaning.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader in the United States House of Representatives, from Brooklyn, New York.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Queens and the great State of New York, the once and future chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Meeks, for his leadership and for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the American people, in support of our men and women in uniform, in support of the United States Constitution, and in support of this War Powers Resolution.
As we gather here today on the floor of the House of Representatives, there are mothers and fathers across this country who are in mourning, confronting the heartbreaking loss of their loved ones in uniform.
My prayers are with the families of the six American servicemembers who have been killed overseas in Donald Trump's war of choice. We are thankful for their heroism, their bravery, and their patriotism. May their memories always be a blessing.
Mr. Speaker, every Member who serves in this Chamber has sworn an oath of office. It seems as though many of my Republican colleagues have forgotten that. Let me remind them, in part, as to what it says: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . so help me God.''
In this remarkable country, the greatest Nation in the history of the world, we don't swear an oath to a king, to a political party, or to a man bent on desecrating the Oval Office. In the Congress, in the courts, and in the military, we swear an oath to the United States Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, when the Framers drafted that glorious document, they feared the rise of a monarch, a demagogue, a tyrant. Today, we are here on the House floor because the Constitution, the binding document that makes us all Americans, is being trampled on by a wannabe king.
As Members of the House of Representatives, the branch of government that the Framers decided would be the closest to the American people, to reflect the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, the fears, the concerns, the anxieties, the life experiences, and the passions of the American people, we have a solemn obligation.
Democrats and Republicans alike, we are all guardians of the American people and of the Constitution. We swore an oath that compels us to ensure that this President's modern-day injuries and abuses come to an end.
We are at war now in the Middle East, spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran, when Republicans refused to find a dime to make healthcare affordable for the American people and to make sure that everyday Americans can go see a doctor when they need one.
This war has not been authorized by the people's Representatives here in this glorious House. Article I of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the sole authority to declare war. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
The Framers made that decision because they were concerned about kings who, throughout time, plunged their people into unnecessary wars, impoverishing them, or imperiling their lives by sending them off to a foreign conflict, often to pillage the resources of others for the benefit of a tyrant and his family. Sound familiar?
That is why the power to declare war was given explicitly to the House and to the Senate. It was given to the people's Representatives.
Abraham Lincoln, as a Member of this House in 1848, once profoundly observed: ``The provision of the Constitution giving the warmaking power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons--Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.''
That is from then Republican Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 1848.
That is why we have advanced this War Powers Resolution today. Donald Trump intentionally refused to get authorization from Congress for this war of choice, a war that has now exploded to more than 10 countries across the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, the President has not even bothered to offer a coherent answer to the most basic questions that any Commander in Chief should address when making the solemn decision to take us to war: Why are we doing this? What are our objectives? How will this all end?
Mr. Speaker, if this military action, this war, is so principled, why is the President unwilling or unable to make his case directly to the American people?
If the tremendous cost to American taxpayers in terms of sacred human lives and our Nation's precious resources is so justified, why does the President's rationale and the administration's rationale change every single day?
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. Iran is a bad actor. They must be confronted for their nuclear aspirations, painful human rights abuses, and repression of its own people, including the slaughter of thousands of civilians during the recent protests.
It is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a brutal regime that presents a serious threat to our allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, and the Gulf states. Yet, the President has a responsibility to justify plunging America into another war that will cost more American lives and billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in taxpayer resources. That is the President's obligation, and he has fallen woefully short of that responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has offered at least five different reasons to justify the war, all of which are built on deception and misdirection.
First, Donald Trump claimed that the U.S. would attack Iran to protect the demonstrators who were risking their lives to demand democratic change. He even urged them weeks ago to rise up and seize state institutions. As the regime cracked down brutally, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens, the President did nothing.
Even as Donald Trump urged ordinary Iranians to take greater risks, there was never a viable military option for defending unarmed protesters against a brutal police state without sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Iran. It was an empty pledge to the Iranian people that the current bombing campaign does nothing to undo.
Second, Donald Trump and his advisers claimed that Iran's unwillingness to negotiate away its nuclear program left no choice but for us to attack.
Mr. Speaker, this is the very same person who told the country last summer that Iran's nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated. This is the same administration whose Department of Defense has said that the Iranian nuclear program was set back several years and whose State Department has said that Iran isn't even enriching uranium today.
Mr. Speaker, was the Commander in Chief confused in June, or is he confused right now?
It was not long ago when America could be sure that we were preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. The Iran nuclear agreement successfully did that until Donald Trump recklessly decided to pull the plug because he suffers from Obama derangement syndrome.
The President has spent much of the past year trying and failing to restore the same negotiated safeguards that he abandoned for partisan political reasons, and because of his failure to negotiate the guardrails that he destroyed, he has now taken us to war.
Third, President Trump claims that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States through its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could perhaps someday reach our shores. If Iran is actually on the verge of having that capability, the President should provide the evidence, but no such evidence has been presented to this Congress or to the American people. We could only assume that it does not exist.
Fourth, Donald Trump said that he wanted to achieve regime change. Donald Trump is an individual who promised Americans on the campaign trail that launching regime-change wars in the Middle East has been one of the most foolish and costly things that the United States has ever done. Those are Donald Trump's words on the campaign trail.
Candidate Trump said that, if elected, he would never get our country into an endless regime war. President Trump has now done the exact opposite.
Regime-change wars are among the most expensive things that we can undertake. And yes, Secretary Hegseth, for decades, they have failed to accomplish their objective.
Vietnam was a regime-change war. Afghanistan was a regime-change war. Iraq was a regime-change war. Despite the incredible bravery of our heroes and patriots, due to failed policy decisions, they didn't work out.
Even if the Iranian regime were to fall, we have no way to control what comes next, which most experts believe would be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-led government rising up and being just as repressive and antagonistic as the current theocracy and perhaps even more committed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Fifth and most recently, Donald Trump said: I ``had a feeling'' Iran would attack first, as some sort of rationale for going to war. Donald Trump had a feeling that Iran would attack.
The United States Government has initiated a war and put American lives at risk. Six patriots have already been killed. Thousands of American citizens are stranded in the Middle East, and he has plunged the entire Middle East into a war and chaos over a feeling.
It is outrageous. It is unacceptable. It shocks the conscience.
In the last few days, six servicemembers have died, and the Trump administration has acknowledged that more of our heroes are going to be killed. We have no concrete justification for why we are putting American troops in harm's way and spending billions of dollars on a foreign war while the affordability crisis rages here at home--a crisis Donald Trump said he would fix on day one but, instead, Republican policies have made worse.
Taxpayer dollars should be used to drop grocery prices, drop housing costs, and drop health insurance premiums. Instead, Donald Trump is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to drop bombs in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, the President's war is unwise. It is unpopular, unauthorized, unlawful, and unconstitutional. In the United States, we serve the rule of law, not the rule of man.
James Madison once wrote in 1788: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''
Our Constitution requires the President get approval from Congress before launching a war. That has not happened, and that is why this bipartisan resolution, led by Democrats, is on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
In their wisdom, the Framers believed that they had made it impossible for a President to do what Donald Trump has just done and that no other President has done before: launched a major war in the Middle East without the approval of Congress.
That is what Donald Trump's time in office has been all about: failure after failure, betrayal after betrayal, disaster after disaster.
In his return to the Presidency, Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump has left America less prosperous, less safe, and less free. He has hurt us again and again, failed us again and again, and now, by launching this unauthorized war of choice, he is setting fire to our Constitution.
The American people deserve better. Democrats are committed to continuing to fight to use American taxpayer dollars to lower the high costs of living, to fix our broken healthcare system, and to clean up corruption.
I stand on the floor here today to make sure that those taxpayer dollars are being used in ways that are designed to make life better for the American people, not launching another endless war in the Middle East that is destined to cost more American lives and waste billions, if not trillions, in taxpayer dollars.
Democrats are here to stand up for the American people. Democrats are here to stand up for our men and women in uniform. Democrats are here to stand up for the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Democrats will not rest until this national nightmare has ended and America can continue to march toward a more perfect Union.
Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot there. I didn't hear any discussion of Article II authority. I heard a lot of reminiscing, but I didn't hear any reminiscing about Libya either.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, in 1979, the Islamic Revolution began, and a dark veil of terror descended upon the Middle East. Since then, Iran has operated as the nucleus to the world's most dangerous terror network.
When the withdrawal from Afghanistan set the world on fire, the regime grew even more emboldened, fanning the flames of chaos and violence beyond its borders. From that moment onward, China, Russia, and Iran have been locked together in an unholy alliance which seeks to destroy Western values and upend the global balance of power.
Iran has played a key role in these malign efforts, arming Russia with lethal drones to massacre Ukrainians and fueling China's military machine through illicit sales of oil. Its terror proxies, Hamas, Houthis, and Hezbollah, have sown terror and instability across the world.
This is a regime that values martyrdom over prosperity and chaos over peace. From their legacy of American bloodshed in Beirut and the USS Cole to harboring terrorists after 9/11, to backing Hamas' unprovoked October 7 attacks that killed 46 Americans, a regime this murderous can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Thanks to President Trump and Operation Epic Fury, the dark shroud that covered the Middle East for nearly five decades has now been lifted. The people of Iran, who have suffered so greatly at the hands of the ayatollah, finally have a chance for freedom.
This is a historic moment, one that could finally put the Middle East on the path to peace. In my judgment, Iran's decision to hit our partners was a severe miscalculation, turning the Gulf nations against Iran. Meanwhile, the regime's so-called allies, Russia and China, have abandoned Iran. Iran is isolated and now an island. Normalization between Israel and the Arab nations, as envisioned in the Abraham Accords, is now at hand.
Despite these truths, Congressional Democrats are seeking to force President Trump to halt Epic Fury mid-operation, risking the objectives of this critical mission, solely for political purposes.
Now is not the time to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief, and it is also not the time to hold up DHS funding.
Even before Operation Epic Fury, the threat landscape was at an all- time
As former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I know all too well how sleeper cells can execute foreign-inspired or foreign- directed acts of terrorism within our borders.
I have already seen that happen in my hometown of Austin, where three people were tragically killed over the weekend at the hands of a terrorist.
Operation Epic Fury confronts this threat head-on, severing the tentacles Iran has wrapped around the globe to strangle peace and spread terror.
The ayatollah's reign of terror began with weak leadership from President Carter. It will end with strong leadership from President Trump.
This War Powers Resolution is ill-timed and ill-advised. Congress must stand with the President and our military to finally close once and for all this dark chapter of history and pave the way for lasting peace.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I heard one of the craziest things from my colleague just a couple of minutes ago: That if something has been going on for 40 years, it can't be imminent. It can't meet the definition of imminent if it has been going on for 40 years. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.
If every day I walk out of my house and get my tail kicked by somebody, that is the exact definition of imminent. It will happen tomorrow and the next day until I finally step up, grow a spine, and prevent it from happening. It is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the person who is the greatest Speaker in the history of the United States Congress, the first woman, and the distinguished Speaker Emerita.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind words but, more importantly, for his leadership in bringing us together today and for his great statement and that of our distinguished leader, Mr. Jeffries, that we heard earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here as former leader, but also as one with 30 years of experience in intelligence. I think this is a very important debate for us to have. There are two debates going on here. One is the debate as to the Constitution of the United States. The other is whether Iran should have a nuclear weapon, which everyone agrees they should not, but that doesn't mean the Constitution of the United States should be a casualty of that because the administration wants to take a shortcut to the war.
I rise in mourning for the brave servicemembers who have given their lives in this conflict. I honor their ultimate sacrifice and pray for them, their families, and all who were injured in this so far.
I had some veterans in my office, Mr. Speaker, earlier today on two different occasions, and they talked about the fact that having six people killed so early at the beginning of a conflict, an initiation of hostilities is unacceptable. What is our plan? What do we have in mind for them?
Again, everyone agrees Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. To that end, that is why I am so proud about what President Obama did with this. He was masterful in diplomacy and in forging an agreement that verifiably prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I have this book of statements from our colleagues who told the President: We need to see the substance of the agreement. We need to see the validation and proof of it all. We need the communication to the American people.
The President respected the Congress and came and gave reasons, and this was for an agreement. This President won't even come and give us the data for an action of war.
Let's be clear. This is not a debate about the merits of the war. That is another debate. It is a debate of the Constitution of the United States.
The beauty of the Constitution, central to it, is the separation of powers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The separation of powers, Article I, and in that Article I is very importantly the power of the Congress to declare war.
Again, let us be serious about our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution as we protect and defend the people of our country. That is our responsibility. That is what we will do.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Constitution and then go on to the debate of whether we should go into Iran or how we go into Iran. I think there will be some mixed views on that, but that is a different subject.
I urge my colleagues to honor your oath of office, honor the vision of our Founders, and honor the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who have gotten us here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have three quick points.
Number one, it is Article II of the Constitution that gives the President the authority to defend us against the imminent threat of Iran.
I would say that if the Iran nuclear deal was so masterful, why didn't they bring it before Congress and before the Senate?
The final point that I would make is this: Again, last Congress, 354 Members of Congress, including 150 Democrats and Speaker Emerita Pelosi, who just spoke, all voted ``to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' That was their vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, Mr. Mast, for yielding and for his leadership on highlighting the error of removing the United States' Armed Forces from a conflict that will bring an end to a 47-year engagement.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: The Iranian regime is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Despite extensive diplomatic efforts, the regime refuses to give up its nuclear weapon ambitions, its ballistic, cruise, and antiship missile production and proliferation, or its support of terror.
As Secretary Rubio said yesterday: ``Iran is run by lunatics, religious fanatic lunatics. They have an ambition to have nuclear weapons. They intend to develop those nuclear weapons behind a program of missiles and drones and terrorism that the world will not be able to touch them for fear of those things.''
When these murderous despots tell us that they want to eliminate us from existence, which they have said time and time again over the past 47 years, and now, in a relatively short timeframe, they attempt to sprint to the finish line by significantly hardening their conventional defensive posture, expediting the development of nuclear weapons and showing their desperation by slaughtering thousands of their own people, it is clear that we have reached the point of no return--a point after which it is too late to respond.
We all know that we wouldn't be here today if the President's name weren't Donald Trump. Democrats have been calling for the U.S. to take action against Iran until Donald Trump did so.
Last month, Democrats sponsored H.R. 7380, the IRAN Act, chastising the Iranian regime for repeatedly shutting down internet connectivity and impeding the Iranian people from communicating during emergencies and exercising internationally recognized human rights.
Earlier this year, the Democrat-sponsored H.R. 5912, the DISRUPT Act, would require the executive branch to ``develop a whole-of-government strategy to disrupt growing cooperation among the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are the foremost adversaries of the United States, and mitigate the risks posed to the United States.''
This Democrat bill even states that the partnering of these four U.S. adversaries ``reinforces threats posed by each such adversary individually.''
It seems pretty clear to me that the Democratic rhetoric has argued in
President Trump has the duty to protect Americans and the United States' interests both at home and abroad. The administration engaged in earnest diplomacy to mitigate the Iranian threat. It became crystal clear, however, that the Iranian regime used the diplomatic process to buy itself time to reconstitute its ballistic missile inventories and nuclear weapons program.
As the threat neared its apex, a point beyond which mitigation would be impossible, President Trump lived up to his duty as Commander in Chief and took decisive action.
On March 2, President Trump notified Congress, consistent with the oft-criticized War Powers Resolution of 1973, of military action used to address this threat to the American people and American interests.
In other words, the President has clearly acted consistent with precedent and has prosecuted this military action in a transparent and forthcoming manner, holding multiple press conferences and sending his Cabinet officials and operational experts to provide multiple classified briefings on the status of the ongoing conflict to all Members of Congress, as well as the appropriate committees and their staffs.
Mr. Speaker, passing the measure today would do nothing to keep America safe. It would do nothing to strengthen Congress. All it would do is put America's safety and all of its allies at risk. It would allow Iran to once again rebuild its murderous regime and terrorize the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank Chairman Mast for his partnership and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for yielding.
Donald Trump has taken America to war without authorization, without explanation, and without a strategy or an exit plan.
Six brave servicemembers have already given the ultimate sacrifice. Others have been wounded, and Americans are stranded across the region. What do we hear from our Commander in Chief? He shrugs and says, ``That is the way it is'' and how about that ballroom?
The American people do not want their sons and daughters shipped to another war in the Middle East when they don't even know what the mission is. They want a country where their children can do better and reach higher than their parents did, where they don't just survive but can actually get ahead and where a doctor's appointment is not a luxury.
What are they getting instead? Republicans have been raiding their healthcare, their Social Security, and their veterans benefits, all to enrich the billionaire class. Illegal tariffs are jacking up prices. Secret police are murdering Americans in the streets. A corrupt DOJ is covering for pedophiles while denying their victims justice.
Today, you can stand with Americans who are entitled to know what the objective of this war is and what the cost will be. They deserve to know the sacrifice will not fall just on working and military families but will be shared by the wealthy and powerful.
Today, you can join us in telling the President that the Constitution is not just a suggestion; that our country belongs to its people, to the American people; that the power to declare war belongs to the people's Representatives; and that 250 years later, whatever Donald Trump may think, America still has no kings.
The intelligence is clear that Iran was attempting to rebuild its nuclear program. Iran was developing missiles that could place American bases in the region and our homeland at risk.
The rapid expansion of Iranian missiles and drones posed an immediate threat to U.S. forces and partners in the region.
Iran's missile and drone arsenal acted as a conventional shield to its nuclear program. Faced with this threat, the President sought diplomatic solutions, but the Iranian regime refused to abandon their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. They refused to limit their ballistic missile arsenal, and they refused to rein in their terrorist proxies.
Only when it became clear that Iran would not agree to a peaceful resolution did President Trump take decisive action and lawful action to protect the American people.
As Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth have repeatedly explained, this is a limited military operation with clearly defined objectives.
Those objectives are: Number one, to destroy the Iranian missile drone and defense infrastructure posing a threat to U.S. forces and partners in the region; and, number two, to degrade Iran's industrial capacity to produce additional drones and missiles; and, number three, to destroy Iranian naval assets with the capacity to threaten U.S. forces and the free flow of commerce through the region.
Achieving these objectives will ensure Iran can no longer threaten the U.S. or our allies.
Past administrations have allowed the threat from Iran to grow and fester to the problem we have now. President Trump took decisive action to end the threat and restore the credibility of American deterrence.
At this time, we should be focused on ensuring our warfighters have the resources and capabilities they need to succeed in this operation. We should not pass any resolution that will end this critical operation before achieving these military objectives. Doing so would needlessly risk the lives of American servicemembers and American allies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to pray for the safety of our men and women in uniform and honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I also urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1789: ``The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.''
The Constitution is clear. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of our Constitution provides Congress initiatory powers for war.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of our Constitution gives the President operational powers of war to wage that war.
Even if this body were to pretend that the 1973 War Powers Resolution supersedes the clear language of the Constitution, the President still has not met the conditions required by that law itself.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution states plainly that the President may only introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities pursuant to three conditions: one, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory authorization; or, three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States.
None of those conditions exist today.
Iran has not attacked the United States, Congress has not declared war, and Congress has not granted specific statutory authorization.
Beyond the constitutional question here lies an even more important one: Why are we going to war with Iran?
We owe our military servicemembers a clear mission.
American families in my district want to know: How is this going to help them pay for groceries?
How does this make them any safer in their schools or in their neighborhoods?
How does this help them pay for housing?
Have we learned nothing from the laundry list of wars and regime- change experiments we sparked across the Middle East that have racked up at
A sustained war with Iran will not stabilize the region. It has already ignited the region. It will radicalize new generations of terrorists, and it will send more swarms of refugees into Europe and the United States.
Iran is not Venezuela. The ayatollah was not a president. He was a religious leader from a region notorious for radical Islamists, and the United States and Israel turned him into a martyr. In the process of doing so, we have already expended billions of dollars, and, more solemnly, six American families must now lay to rest their sons and daughters.
For what?
This administration can't even give us a straight answer as to why we launched this preemptive war. The President says we had to strike first because an Iranian strike was imminent. Meanwhile the Department of Defense conceded there was no evidence of an imminent Iranian strike.
Some told us this war is about nuclear weapons, but 6 months ago, we were assured our last strike on Iran decimated their nuclear program.
So which is it?
I think the most candid answer came from the Secretary of State who told the press that Israel forced our hand and dragged us into this war again. That truth is the very reason why it is Congress that must decide war.
If American lives are to be risked and American blood is to be shed, that decision must be debated and voted on by the Representatives and the American people, and that debate is meant to be arduous and long. That vote is meant to be hard.
I have a theory. I think my colleagues don't want to go on record because we have a terrible track record of meddling in the Middle East. They don't want their name associated with this when it doesn't turn out well. However, Congress cannot be bothered with its constitutional duty because for many in this Chamber it is easier to simply allow someone else's sons and daughters to be sent to combat without their vote.
To be clear, we aren't even here to declare war today. All we are voting on is a War Powers Resolution to reassert the Constitution, which is that Congress must decide questions of war, and if Congress wants war, then the Speaker should hold a vote to declare it.
Some say Congress authorizes war when we pay for it when we pass the budget bill. Here is the problem: We haven't taken on the hard work of defining the mission for our sons and daughters who are going to fight. That is not in the budget bill. It never is.
To the men and women who are engaged in combat, I sincerely thank you, and I pray for your safety. It is for you that I wrote this resolution. It is for you that all of us are here on this floor working so hard to force this vote so that you will have the clear mission that you deserve and so that you will know that when you achieve it, you can come home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge not supporting this resolution. I am thankful that my colleague at least started to talk about that there is an Article II authority. He actually discussed that.
When is something an emergency?
That is what a real debate can be. I have laid out very clearly a number of reasons why I believe it is a national emergency and why I believe that threat is imminent because of a number of things that have happened. My colleagues over there say that something can't be imminent if it has been going on for years. To me that would be the definition of imminent if it is ongoing for years.
At least my colleague was willing to have that debate, although I disagree with him and urge not passing his legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Iran has held the world hostage with its nuclear threats, unbridled violence and hate, pervasive use of torture and rape, and Nazi-like anti-Semitism.
Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. All diplomatic initiatives to secure peace, justice, and reconciliation with the Iranian dictatorship have been fruitless.
President Trump is a man of his word, and he means it when he says that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. Despite ample warnings and admonishments to negotiate seriously, which it has never done, Iran has defied U.S. diplomacy to end its decades-long quest to procure nuclear weapons and cease its despicable violence against Americans, Israelis, and the Iranians themselves.
Among the many egregious concessions made in 2015 by President Obama to the Iranians was to get a deal which included removal of a treaty obligation that would have ended Iran's missile program and prevent the production of the ballistic missiles that are today raining down on our American military in the region, Israeli civilians, and our friends in neighboring countries.
In debate on the House floor in 2015, I stood right here and said: Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei criticized the call for Iran to end its ballistic missile program, characterizing it as a stupid and idiotic expectation, claiming that the Revolutionary Guard should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied with the present level of missiles.
Khamenei said that they should mass produce those missiles, and mass produce they have, killing thousands and putting millions more at risk. It is estimated that Iran produces 100 missiles each and every month.
I would remind my colleagues that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed by China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and, of course, the United States, the P5+1, had a sunset date of October 18, 2025.
I remember asking for it during debate in committee and on the floor.
Sunset? Did anyone think that in 2015 that Iran would somehow matriculate from a brutal dictatorship to a democracy in those 10 years?
That provided the Iranians the incentive to wait us out because then everything would be lifted even in that flawed deal.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that the Trump administration has refused--I say again ``refused''--to have the United States bullied by Iran.
The distinguished chairman before went through one instance after another where they have killed Americans. Even when they bombed us in Lebanon, there was a young man in the Marines from my district who was killed in that brutal act of war by the Iranian dictatorship.
I just say that I am against this resolution. May God bless and protect our courageous servicemembers, as well as the idea of soldiers who are fighting this tyrannical Iranian dictatorship with incredible courage, professionalism, skill, and tenacity.
Mr. Speaker, the world needs a new moral vision. America needs a new vision.
We are seeing militarism erode the soul of our Nation, leading to a regime change war in Iran and utter human devastation in Gaza.
Simply put, we have lost our way. We are back to the law of the jungle, where might makes right and where the Middle East descends into a Hobbesian war of all against all.
President Eisenhower warned that every warship built, every bomb deployed, every missile launched is a hospital and school forgone. A world in arms, he said, is stealing the hopes of our children.
Today, this vote on Iran is not a procedural vote. It is a profoundly moral vote. It is a vote to direct our resources toward healing our own people, toward healthcare that saves lives, jobs that restore dignity, and housing that shelters families instead of raining destruction on other nations.
It is a vote to renew an America that leads once more through diplomacy, statesmanship, and principle, an America that strives to end cycles of violence rather than ignite them, an America that cooperates with other nations rather than bullying them into submission, an America committed to confronting child poverty, the climate
The world needs an America that finds its moral center, Mr. Speaker. Let us rise to this historic challenge. In this body, let us declare with courage and clarity that we reject this illegal and unjust war in Iran. Let us choose moral renewal over further moral decay.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why not to trust what was just said as the gentleman walks out. Here is what he voted for: ``Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners.'' That is literally what he voted for. ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' To me, that seems pretty damn imminent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), chairman of the Europe Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise here in response to my colleague from across the aisle. I thought we were talking about the War Powers Act and not the Democrats' social programs. That is what I am going to do.
President Trump's decision to strike Iran is not starting a forever war. It is ending a forever war. For half a century, the Islamic Republic of Iran has cast a shadow over the Middle East and trapped the region in a dark age. When the regime chants ``death to America, death to Israel,'' they mean it.
The Islamic Republic is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, thousands of Israelis, and tens of thousands of their own people, including up to 30,000 in just the last few weeks. Iran has slaughtered more Americans than any other terrorist regime in the world, and they will continue to kill Americans until they are stopped.
Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world by nonstate actors, something that is not even contemplated by the War Powers Act. The regime funds, trains, and equips countless Islamic terrorist groups, including the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and many others across Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the region. For years, Iran has leveraged these terrorists to wage war against and kill Americans and countless civilians throughout the region.
Just last weekend in my home State, a gunman horrifically killed three innocent people and injured four others in Austin, Texas, while reportedly wearing a sweatshirt that read ``Property of Allah'' and a shirt with an Islamic Republic of Iran flag on it. While law enforcement continues its investigation into a connection with the Islamic Republic, Americans must understand the enemy is within the gates.
The current regime in Iran is the poster child for Islam and sharia law, a culture of violence and domination that is totally incompatible with individual freedoms, our Constitution, and our heritage.
Islam is an existential threat to our constitutional republic. By conducting this joint operation with our partners in the region to defend against tyranny, we are defending Western civilization.
Furthermore, the Iranian people have overwhelmingly demonstrated a clear will to overthrow and change the radical regime. Tens of thousands of civilians have sacrificed their lives as a testimony to this point. By giving the green light to Epic Fury, President Trump is giving the Iranian people a fighting chance to alter the course of history in the Middle East and the world.
As the Article II branch, the President is undertaking his constitutional duty as Commander in Chief to defend the United States from a tyrannical, murderous Islamic regime.
Finally, I would also like to note that since the War Powers Act was enacted, every President, both Republican and Democrat, has agreed that this law is unconstitutional.
Instead of airing personal grievances with the President, the American people and our servicemembers would be better off if Congress focused on reopening the Department of Homeland Security to prevent attacks on American soil and support the President in executing his Article II duty.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, while I agree that this body should engage in discussions about the War Powers Act, this is not the appropriate time. U.S. troops are currently in harm's way, and they need to have our full-throated support, full stop. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, my name is Warren Davidson, and I love this country with a soldier's passion.
More than 30 years ago, I enlisted in the infantry. My chain of command later helped me earn an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. I was commissioned as an infantry officer, serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 101st Airborne, Rakkasans, and The Old Guard.
Then and now, I swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of the United States. As our military engages them, they do so justly. Unfortunately, they are not yet doing so constitutionally, and that is why we are here today.
For some, this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: Is the President of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants? That is not what our Constitution says.
Is he empowered to do whatever he wants for 60 or 90 days? That is not what the War Powers Act says.
Is there any limit to executive authority whatsoever?
I rise in support of this War Powers Resolution today because the moral hazard posed by a government no longer constrained by our Constitution is a grave threat.
The threat to a government no longer constrained by the plain meaning of words is not new for Democrats. Recall that Democrats needed help answering: ``What is a woman?'' Unfortunately, Republicans now want to claim they can't answer: ``What is a war?''
This debate isn't even new. Democratic President Harry Truman obstructed a vote on the Korean war, pretending it was, instead, a U.N. police action. Republican Senator Taft from Ohio insisted in vain that Congress should not shirk its duty to vote on declaring war or at least to authorize the conflict. Instead, Congress then, as it has in the past, passively cut checks to fund the war that they refused to authorize.
This dereliction of duty is commonly mocked as an example of constitutional avoidance, and it contributed to the passage of the War Powers Act.
President Trump's America First message was supposed to be a rejection of the globalist war machine whose endless wars have left America less free, less safe, and more burdened by debt. On the other hand, President Trump has been reluctant to embrace war and has been incredibly successful in diplomacy.
In this case, war may well be necessary, but it is far more pressing that we restore a government small enough to fit within the Constitution. We can afford a government that small and no other. America is a Republic, not an empire.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to honor their oath and support our Constitution. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friend from Ohio knows I deeply respect him, his service to our country, and his consistency, frankly. That is something that we are not seeing from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and that is to be commended.
We have a different opinion on whether this is legal or not. We all know that the reason we are here is that for nearly half a century, the Iranian regime has terrorized the globe
They have killed approximately a thousand Americans and maimed thousands of others, both Americans and Arabs, with roadside bombs and other IEDs. We have seen all the videos online with drones and missiles hurtling into malls, hospitals, and hotels. This has to stop.
During his first term, President Trump imposed a maximum pressure campaign in response to President Obama's lack of action regarding Iran, and that crippled Iran's ability to raise revenues from its oil operations and fund their terror network.
How do I know that, Mr. Speaker? Because as a member of the Financial Services Committee where all of those sanctions originated, I worked on those very sanctions.
However, years later, the Biden administration found those moves too far and harsh on Iran and refused to enforce those sanctions. Sanctions are only as good and useful as their willingness to enforce them.
During this period, Iranian crude production topped 3 million barrels a day, greater by more than a factor of seven during the maximum pressure campaign, allowing the Iranian regime to continue to finance its brutality internationally and domestically.
Congress attempted to reverse course by passing legislation to codify the maximum pressure campaign measures. That is why the House of Representatives passed my bill, the No U.S. Financing for Iran Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority during the 118th Congress, to cut off the Iranian regime from the U.S. financial system. My friends who voted for that seem to forget.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to forget that the Iranian regime directed an assassination attempt against the current President of the United States. Whether you like President Trump or not, no sitting President should be allowed to be a target by a foreign country without consequences.
Peace through strength does not mean another open-ended war of the past. Operation Epic Fury is a defensive action using overwhelming force to protect the American people from an imminent and growing threat.
Additionally, it cannot be ignored that Iran was producing conventional drones and ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, until just this past weekend, and to provide a protective layer of defense for its nuclear ambitions and nuclear weapons development.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has clearly defined the mission, the objective, and the timeline. He has notified and briefed Congress on these operations. Simply put, Iran cannot, under any circumstances, possess the capabilities for having nuclear weapons.
The Biden administration's official policy toward Iran summed up in one word: ``Don't.'' That phrase underpinned one of the most ineffective foreign policy agendas in the 21st century. Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, hoping to score political points by tying the President's hands in the face of danger. It is time that we defend our liberty, our freedom, our neighbors, and this great Nation in the face of Iran's systematic terror.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially concerned about Iran's stockpile of enhanced uranium, which could be used at any time. I know that the President has said that the nuclear capability of Iran had been obliterated.
However, prior to the first Trump administration, the U.S. was able to monitor the status of Iran's uranium under an agreement called the ``Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,'' the JCPOA. The U.S. negotiated this agreement with Iran in 2015, but Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Now, we have no way to track the status of Iran's dangerous uranium stockpile. This war must be stopped.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker just said she was worried about Iran's uranium stockpile and that it could be used at any time. That seems pretty damn imminent to me, too.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman is right. We just pointed to the three key things that you need in order to have lethal force against the United States. One is intent.
I think that Iran and the regime have made it very clear when they are chanting ``death to America,'' the thousands of lives they have changed with either maiming or killing American troops or civilians abroad, but also likelihood.
We know that they are able to build 100-plus missiles a day. We know they had ICBMs. We have now found out they had the hypersonic ballistic capabilities as they targeted over six different countries.
The thing we talk about, the JCPOA, as was just mentioned, Resolution 2231 where the administration tried to come up with an idea of a negotiation that led to diplomatic and peaceful solutions, was continually violated by this regime as even Secretary-Generals Ban Ki- moon and Guterres had pointed out multiple times as the Iranian regime sent mid-range ballistic missiles to the Houthis and to other areas to continue attacking Americans and the West.
The hypocrisy is what I really want to point out here, not the fact that we already understand the Article II authorities that the President has, which is well within the bounds constitutionally, not to mention the fact that this body, before I came into Congress, was already abdicating the roles and responsibilities under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 when they started doing things like AUMFs.
Let us point to things like what we saw in Libya. It was very clear in 2011, as we see here in military intervention, that it was without prior congressional authorization, relying instead on a U.N. Security Council resolution and legal justification from the Department of Justice that argued that the administration had limited nonground troop missions and doesn't constitute hostilities. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have here: no ground troops.
It also goes on further to justify under the United Nations mandates, international mandates, and the legal justification to say that because they were focused on protecting civilians, not sustained fighting and didn't involve ground troops. I don't know about you, but I think 40- plus Iranian civilians, peacefully protesting for a change, being brutally murdered, being raped, being tortured, being slaughtered, being hung from cranes, being persecuted and imprisoned--I think President Trump stopping this after 47 years was protecting civilian lives.
I think it is established that we had no boots on the ground. I think that we have demonstrated the imminence, the likelihood, and intent of an evil regime to try and go ahead and attack Americans and threaten our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman about to speak on the other side, Mr. Raskin, also voted to say Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners and to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He must have thought it was pretty damn imminent, too.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, yes, use all lawful and constitutional means. I heard one of our colleagues across the aisle just say: Well, yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does give Congress the exclusive, plenary, comprehensive power to declare
What a humiliating, self-defeating argument for a Member of the Article I branch of Congress to make. Don't my colleagues understand that destroys our power to declare war if any President can plunge us into a war and thereby defeat our exclusive, plenary power over it?
The Framers weren't fooling around when they did that. They knew that the kings were constantly plunging their people into wars of deception, conceit, plunder, imperial avarice, and fantasy. The kings were constantly doing that. They didn't want to leave it up to one person to decide whether to send a whole country to war and to put our sons and daughters at risk.
That is an awesome and solemn responsibility that must be vested in the Representatives of the people, all the people, which is why both the House and the Senate are involved in it.
Whether my colleagues think this war is the most brilliant and strategic breakthrough and moral cause since World War II, or they think it is an absolute strategic blunder built on lies like the last wars in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, which cost thousands of lives and more than $1 trillion, wherever my colleagues are on that policy question, can we not agree as Members of the Article I branch that it is up to us? We have to vote on it. We have to debate on it.
I am hearing very interesting and good arguments all over this spectrum on this. That is why it is reposed in the Representatives of the people to decide it. It is not Donald Trump, not JD Vance, not Tulsi Gabbard, or anybody else in the executive branch. It is our decision. Everybody should vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard it brought up many times that we get to vote to declare war. We do, but it is enshrined in the Constitution that the President gets to defend the United States of America because of national emergencies.
These kinds of emergencies that the last gentleman voted to say to ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,'' that seems like an emergency to me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, President Trump launched military operations against the terrorist Iranian regime, alongside our ally, Israel, killing the Ayatollah and many of his top lieutenants in the IRGC and the council of clerics.
This operation came after almost a year of negotiations to reach a diplomatic solution to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles program, and funding of terrorism. Time and again, we were left emptyhanded because of the regime's unwillingness to honestly negotiate in good faith.
After exhausting all potential diplomatic means, only then did the President initiate Operation Epic Fury.
It is also important to point out that this engagement is not a new war. The Iranian regime has been at war with America for 47 years.
They have been attacking Americans, our military, our allies, and our partners. They advocate for death to America. They hate us. They hate America. They hate Israel. They hate Europe. They hate the West. They massacre their own people for simple public dissent and peaceful protest.
They send money to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other terror proxies around the world with the express interest of killing Americans and Israelis. They funded the October 7 terrorist attack that murdered and kidnapped not just Israelis but Americans. The Ayatollah and his conspirators paid the ultimate price.
This is the maximum pressure campaign President Trump advocated for. This is how we secure our national security so that Americans can be free and safe and our allies in the Middle East can be free and safe.
The long-term strategic benefits here in regard to peace and stability are immense. The only way to ensure peace and economic prosperity in the Middle East is to eliminate the single greatest threat to it.
As far as the War Powers Act goes, the President is fully compliant. Congress was notified. Congress was briefed. The fact is that the President has 60 to 90 days to conduct this operation. If Congress sees fit at that time, we will address it.
Mr. Speaker, to try to unilaterally end this operation puts our national security at risk, puts our troops at risk, and puts our allies at risk.
Iran is belligerently striking Arab partners as we speak. They are hitting civilian sites and trying to kill American soldiers. In fact, they have killed six.
Many of my colleagues said nothing when Barack Obama engaged in a 7- month campaign in Libya. In fact, when a War Powers Resolution was on this floor, many opposed it, including Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when we look back, Presidents of both parties have acted under Article II and without the express authorization of Congress.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it best when she said that Barack Obama could conduct the operation in Libya for 7 months and did not require congressional authority.
Stop being hyperpartisan hypocrites and acknowledge the simple fact that the President is legally justified. Vote ``no'' on this War Powers Resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to this debate since it began. The arguments being made by half of the Representatives of the people of the United States, the arguments as to why they should abrogate their constitutionally mandated duty, are bizarre to me.
Most of the arguments have not been arguments. The arguments are that Iran is evil, that they hate the U.S., and that they mean us ill. The majority will find no argument over here that that is true.
Oddly enough, when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they didn't say we shall declare war only when it is not clear that the belligerent is evil or means us ill. It was a categorical demand that the Representatives of the people, because blood and treasure would be consumed, that the Representatives of the people not just be informed but that they provide authorization.
I have heard the majority say that the danger was imminent. I am the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I can say with authority that, in the last 10 years, Iran's ability to create mayhem, while still very substantial, is at an ebb.
The President himself said the nuclear capabilities were ``obliterated,'' his word. Hezbollah has been largely rolled up in Beirut by the Lebanese Armed Forces. We have a pretty good sense of what the Houthis are capable of and how to counter them. If the argument is imminence, that is absurd. There was no imminent threat to the United States on Friday or Saturday of last week.
By the way, the argument that my friend from New York just made, which is that Obama did it, is beyond absurd. I wasn't here when Obama did it. We weren't asked to vote on it. I remember telling the Vice President at the time that our Constitution demands congressional assent.
Congress was not notified. It was not briefed. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the Constitution is clear that, with six dead Americans, with our treasure being consumed, we must approve this action.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
By the way, this Congress was not informed. Mr. Speaker, eight Members of this Congress were informed.
Set aside, if you will, for a moment the Constitution. Should the Representatives of the people authorize an action that will kill many of those people and that will consume blood and treasure? Our Framers certainly said the answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Speaker, let's not abrogate our constitutional duty or our constitutional power. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's poke a few holes in the Intelligence Committee ranking member's story here.
``At an ebb.'' They have been knocking jets off of our aircraft carriers. They have been attacking in places like Syria and Iraq. They killed three U.S. servicemembers at Tower 22 in Jordan, but he can say that it is at an ebb.
Let's poke one more hole in this. As ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, he did not vote to say that Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners. That seems like an odd thing that the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee wouldn't vote for.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and misguided War Powers Resolution that would weaken our country and serve as a gift to our enemies.
The radical terrorist regime in Tehran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, has targeted and killed thousands of Americans since 1979. The United States, Israel, and all of our allies are safer because the Ayatollah is dead.
Since the taking of our hostages from our embassy in 1979 to the infamous 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines, to the attack on the USS Cole that left 37 Navy sailors dead, to the maiming and killing of thousands of U.S. military members during the global war on terrorism, the Iranian terrorist regime has always posed a grievous threat to the United States. Operation Epic Fury is neutralizing that threat, and it has been a tremendous success.
President Trump promised that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. He is acting on that promise to make the world a safer place, and he is complying with the law in doing so, not just in complying with the notification requirements of the War Powers Resolution, not only through the consultation provisions, and not only with routinely updating Congress, but also under the Commander in Chief powers.
As a legal matter, the President of the United States doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities to protect the American people. The Commander in Chief Clause gives the President the exclusive power to command the military in operations approved by Congress, and it also gives the President substantial independent power to direct military operations, so long as the President does not infringe on the exclusive powers of Congress.
What are the exclusive powers of Congress? The declaration power--we have been silent on that--and appropriations, the power of the purse. This Congress has appropriated funds to defend the country, and we increased appropriations through the reconciliation bill this year.
The NDAA is the policy of this Congress, which identifies Iran as a threat to our country. The Constitution was clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, which changes the legal status of the country. Yet, the Framers did not think that the language meant that the President and Congress have to work together all of the time to turn the keys of the war power.
The Founders were practical men. They understood that Congress is slow to act, and Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 70 that energy in the executive is essential for national security, unity, secrecy, dispatch, and decision, and he contended that a single President is vital for defending the country.
Mr. Speaker, Congress' real power is not just the declaration power. It is the power of the purse. If my friends want to constrain the President, they have the authority to do it through the appropriations process. They do not have the constitutional authority to constrain the President from defending this country and defending our national security, advancing our national security, and ridding the world of this menace.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a voice for my generation and for my community in San Diego, the biggest military community in our country.
When Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken military action, it is our servicemembers, our young people, who are sent into harm's way. They sacrifice their bodies, their mental health, their time with their loved ones, and even their lives for us.
While they are willing to make those sacrifices, we in Congress should be damned sure it is worth it. Too often, it is not. Too often, wars last longer and cost more than promised. Too often, regime-change plans go awry, like we have already seen with the deaths of six servicemembers, hundreds of civilian deaths, and rising gas prices.
My colleagues will try to claim that voting for this War Powers Resolution hurts our servicemembers, but the opposite is true. We owe our servicemembers a real debate before we send them into harm's way. Voting ``yes'' is a vote for our military to ensure that their sacrifices won't be in vain.
If any of my colleagues vote ``no,'' they should come to my district, look our servicemembers in the eye, and explain why they believe debating before we risk their lives is a bad thing.
I hope every single one of my colleagues votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution for our servicemembers.
Mr. Speaker, the Iranian terrorist regime has been at war with the American people for nearly 50 years through countless terrorist attacks, countless American servicemen and -women injured, and a persistent danger to the United States of America. President Trump's actions are a long time coming, well-meaning, and well- deserved.
I had the opportunity and the privilege to serve with the United States State Department during the Iraq surge, where I participated in putting together a joint U.S.-Iraqi interagency team to suppress Iranian-backed militia groups in Baghdad. These were very, very bad guys.
One of the things that they did was use what is called an explosively form penetrator. Al-Qaida and the Sunni groups would bake a lot of explosives on their roof and make big bombs. What the Iranians would do was make a special kind of bomb with a copper plate that would get an explosive, and it could punch right through our armor.
One day, on a trip to Sadr City, I watched a massive what is called an MRAP, armored personnel carrier, explode in front of me from an Iranian bomb and watched as that hulking metal burned to a crisp as American servicemen and -women sought to deal with the aftermath.
This terrorist regime has killed thousands of their countrymen and killed Americans across the Middle East, and it is time for them to come to an end. This is a partisan political maneuver by the Democrats, and they should be ashamed for what they are doing to put our servicemen and -women in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and reasserting Congress' constitutional responsibility.
As the gentleman from Florida stated, the President has the power to
President Trump's illegal strikes against Iran are dragging the United States into another costly war in the Middle East.
To be clear, I shed no tears over the Ayatollah's death. His brutality was responsible for the deaths of scores of his own people, and he directed terrorist proxies around the world. Yet, his removal is unlikely to bring about the revolution and regime change that the President seeks.
We had a diplomatic agreement with Iran that did contain their nuclear threat with constant verification, but President Trump tore up that agreement.
This unnecessary attack is a clear violation of the Constitution. Kings often plunged their nations into wars for plunder or avarice. The Constitution gave the power to decide on war or peace to Congress so that no President could act as a king.
That is precisely what the President is doing. We must pass this resolution to chastise President Trump and to reassert what the Constitution provides: that only Congress can decide to commit this Nation to war.
I urge Members to vote ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in symbolic things at times. It was 47 years ago that Iran began chanting ``Death to America.'' I don't think it is symbolic that the 47th President of the United States is the first to do something about it, but only one number away from that is 46. That is the number of Americans that, thanks to Iran, were killed on October 7, 2023.
I don't think Iran had a meeting where they debated whether they should support Hamas to go and do that attack. They did it, and now America is in the position that we are in.
There was a press conference not too long ago where the Speaker was asked: You are saying that the President did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress? The Speaker of the House answered that question: Yes. That was Nancy Pelosi when asked about an attack on Libya.
President Trump is doing exactly what he is authorized to do: protecting the United States by making sure a terrorist regime cannot attack us using nuclear weapons.
While there may be some who want to wait until America is nuked to have that discussion, I am not one of them. I support the President. I support his judgment. He has not let us down. He has defined the mission in clear, compelling, and concise ways to make sure they don't get nukes, to make sure they can't develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, and to make sure they don't have a military shield to support them as they do that.
I don't have to have a debate before he does that sort of thing. That is what our Framers intended.
The fact of the matter is I wouldn't trust some of the people in this room to have that debate if we wanted to put handcuffs around him before he did that.
The President is doing the right thing. Congress should stand by him. Congress should trust Trump because he is not letting us down, and he won't let us down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. Speaker, Americans do not want and cannot afford another war in the Middle East.
On Saturday morning, Americans woke up to the shocking news that our Nation was at war again in the Middle East. There was no public justification, no vote to authorize this war in Congress.
Why this war? Why now?
If they say it is about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, just last year, President Trump claimed Iran's nuclear program had been completely and totally obliterated. In fact, Iran is further from perfecting a nuclear weapon now than it has been in years.
Some claim it is to disable air ballistic missile capability, but Iran doesn't have a single ballistic missile that can reach the mainland United States, and we don't expect them to for many years.
Is this about terrorism? It is true that Iran has helped finance and supply groups like Hamas and Hezbollah over the years, but they too are much weaker, much less capable after 2 years of conflict.
Why now? Well, Secretary Rubio told us himself. He said that Israel was going to strike Iran, which would have triggered Iranian strikes on U.S. forces in the region.
Rather than pick up the phone and tell Benjamin Netanyahu to stand down, the President of the United States buckled and decided to join their war.
How is this America First?
For 25 years, a generation of American servicemembers and their families have sacrificed so much because of regime-change wars in the Middle East. President Trump is now asking yet another generation of Americans to sacrifice in the hope that this time it will go differently than Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.
This is Donald Trump's war. This is Benjamin Netanyahu's war. Your vote today will determine whether this is your war, too.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening right now. The United States is confronting a regime that has spent decades chanting ``Death to America;'' a regime whose proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, just to name a few, have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of American troops; a regime that is working relentlessly toward a nuclear weapon.
A nuclear-armed Iran would not just threaten the Middle East. It would threaten the entire world and, yes, civilization as we know it.
Now, at the very moment when decisive action is being taken to dismantle a threat, this resolution would tie the hands of the President of the United States. Congress should not allow this to happen. Congress cannot allow this to happen.
Decisive action against the Iranian regime is about protecting America and about protecting Americans. It is about protecting our troops stationed across the Middle East. It is about protecting our citizens abroad and our allies in the region.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
For too long, the Iranian regime has acted with impunity as it murders its own people, tortures its own people, and destroys its own people. There is simply no justification for allowing this regime and its leaders to continue to exist.
America will not wait to be hit first and will not gamble with American lives. America will not allow the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to obtain the most dangerous weapon on the face of the Earth.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Islamic Republic is a barbaric, corrupt regime that has murdered, imprisoned, and terrorized its own people for decades.
As the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled this regime, I know personally what its violence means. Members of my family and friends have been brutalized and murdered by the Islamic Republic. My grandfather was imprisoned by the regime, and my family member was beheaded by them. The horror stories go on.
Let me be very clear: I have spent my entire life opposing the Islamic Republic and its brutality, and I celebrate
At the same time, as an American Congresswoman, who swore an oath to the United States Constitution, I am deeply concerned by President Trump's decision to launch an illegal war--because it is, in fact, illegal--against Iran without congressional authorization and without presenting a clear plan to the American people.
War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people, and for the entire world. It is the most serious decision that a nation can make. The American people deserve debate, transparency, and accountability before that decision is made.
The Constitution is clear: the power to declare war rests with Congress. I want nothing more than a free Iran and safety and security for innocent Iranians. That requires more than force. It requires seriousness, accountability, and a real plan to support the Iranian people in determining their own future.
Donald Trump has shown at every instance that freedom for the people of Iran is not his priority. Every few hours the administration jumps to a new justification or objective for this war, but never is a democratic transition and self-determination for Iranians a part of the discussion. This was echoed last night by senior administration officials at the briefing to Members of Congress.
Ultimately, this vote is about the legitimacy of our democracy and our Constitution, and that is why I will be voting ``yes'' on the War Powers Resolution.
Mr. Speaker, before I reserve again, I would just invite the previous speaker to explain. If Iran posed an emergency, an existential threat to America, I would be happy to hear it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution.
Donald Trump is unilaterally dragging this Nation into an illegal and unjustified war with Iran.
As someone who has survived the horrors of war, I know that bombs do not build peace or create stability. Military strikes will not make us safer. They will inflame tensions and push the region further into chaos.
Every time people abandon diplomacy, they choose destruction. Congress knows who will bear the cost of this decision: innocent civilians caught in the crossfire and young servicemembers sent into harm's way.
The American people are exhausted by endless wars built on false promises and paid for with American and foreign lives.
Congress must reassert its constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to stop U.S. involvement in another illegal forever war.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the same comments about Venezuela. There has been no forever war there, and that did bring peace and stability to the Venezuelan people. I guess we are proving the previous comments wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution.
Directing President Trump to withdraw combat operations in Iran is not only foolish, but it is dangerous. Pulling back now will solidify the regime's brutal grip on the great people of Iran and put American troops in grave danger.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are claiming we must pass this resolution because President Trump acted without an imminent threat to U.S. forces in the region. Are we serious? No imminent threat?
Iran and its proxies have been soaking themselves in American blood for nearly 50 years. Are we to believe that, one, their ballistic missile program is not dangerous; two, their nuclear program is not anything; or, three, their vast proxy network of terrorists all over the world is not an imminent threat to U.S. forces?
Our veterans know the answer to that question. They, unlike most of us, have been fighting Iran well before the start of Operation Epic Fury. They have been under imminent threat for decades. Attack after attack, Iran and its proxies have seldom passed up an opportunity to kill Americans, and the other side of the aisle knows it.
The President is well within his Article II authorities to defend U.S. forces from needless bloodshed. To do so, Iran's offensive military capabilities must be destroyed.
This is not a war of choice. This is an intervention to prevent a future full-scale war in the Middle East that we must avoid.
President Trump knows this and so do my colleagues on the other side. The difference is that President Trump has the foresight to make this difficult but prudent decision.
As we debate in this Chamber, our military is quickly dismantling the Iranian threat. When this is all over soon, we will be much safer for it.
God bless and protect our Armed Forces, and our prayers are with the fallen and their families. We are able to stand here today because of generations of their sacrifice. Semper Fidelis.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is defending the Ayatollah. There is no love lost for a brutal government that sponsors terror and murders their people.
Iran has been doing this for decades. Everybody knows that. So my question is this: Why wasn't Donald Trump in favor of regime change until this weekend? Why did he campaign on swearing he would never send American kids to fight and die in the Middle East?
Republicans can't answer because they were against war with Iran until exactly the second Donald Trump decided to go to war. Now, they are all running around sounding like neocon lunatics.
America can't take this level of gaslighting.
I went to the classified briefing. There was no imminent threat, I guess unless Republicans want to redefine the word ``imminent'' to mean stretching back 47 years.
This whole thing is just so transparently built on lies. Republicans went from imminent threat to regime change to nukes back to imminent threat in the last 24 hours.
I will tell you what this is, Mr. Speaker. This is Iraq 2.0. I still remember the lies about WMDs. I voted against that war, too. At least George Bush had the decency to lie to people's faces.
By the way, no congressional vote can legitimize this because there was no imminent threat. There was no U.N. Security Council resolution. This war is illegal, no matter what you want to call it.
It is not Donald Trump's kids that will have to fight and die for their draft-dodging dad. It is not the children of the billionaire Epstein class. It is working-class kids who are going to put their lives on the line.
Shame on Republicans. I am sick of this bs. We are spending billions of dollars a day on a war, and we can't even get Republicans to join us to expand healthcare in America.
How the hell is this America First? You guys broke your top campaign promise. Good luck with that. I hope the defense contractor money was worth it. Shame on you all. The mask is off. You are all just a bunch of pathetic neocon warmongers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, in addition to the disparaging of the President, the previous speaker implied that this was about money from defense contractors. Shame on anyone who would say that.
I was a first lieutenant about to be a captain when the war was declared against us 47 years ago. Iran has been at war with us and the world for 47 years.
In 1982, I was a young captain when they killed 220 marines with their bombs and their proxies in Lebanon.
Should we say, in fact, this is not defense of America against a country that every day for 47 years has said
To invoke the War Powers Act as though this is not defense and then to imply that there is any purpose other than to recognize that this pervasive threat that has killed Americans and others around the world decade after decade was getting stronger and stronger?
Even though I hear that there was no U.N., no this or that, I have visited Ukraine, where their assembled parts are killing Americans, Russians, Ukrainians, anyone they want because they are an exporter of terror.
The fact is, around the world, we are at war with the country of Iran. In my ancestral country of Lebanon, today, their proxies are firing on Israel in support of their hatred of the little Satan, we being the big Satan.
Am I defending the actions of the President? You betcha. I have defended it for my entire quarter of a century here, regardless of the party.
The only thing I can't defend is the idea that we have placated and empowered Iran time and time again, so that today the job is harder and longer than it otherwise would be.
Lastly, there is no question that if we withdraw or cease at this time, we are saying to the next Ayatollah, the next Supreme Leader, that, in fact, the United States will not see this through. We will be empowering them to spread their terror, to have more American blood on their hands as a result.
Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on this resolution because it is not only unconstitutional, but it is also ill-advised at a time in which we are defending America.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the next speaker as well, it would appear, voted to say: ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' He clearly thought that there was a pretty damn imminent threat going on there, but I look forward to hearing the remarks.
I support the bipartisan War Powers Resolution. We find ourselves, once again, in a foolish regime change war, much like the one that my generation was sent to serve in Iraq that cost thousands of lives and a trillion-plus dollars.
I have heard lots of justifications on the other side for why this, number one, isn't a war while I heard the gentleman from New York call it a war. That is what it is. The Defense Secretary has called it a war. That is what this is.
I have seen pointing to different authorities here and there, between the laws, that might justify this.
Congress has not declared war. Congress has not provided a statutory Authorization for Use of Military Force. The third condition of the War Powers Resolution that could allow the President to do such a thing is that the United States is under attack. We, of course, were not under attack when the President started this war that we don't need to fight today.
That is the War Powers Resolution. Those are the three bases that a President can use force under the War Powers Resolution.
Let's not forget that the American people want life to be less of a rip-off here at home. They want healthcare they can afford and housing. I can go on and on.
What they don't want is Americans coming back in flag-draped caskets and billions of dollars spent overseas.
Today I asked the Trump administration officials for the cost of this war. They can't answer the question. Those are the basic things you have to know before you send Americans to fight, Mr. Speaker.
We should support this resolution and put a stop to this now.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership, service, and sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 38 which would limit the President's ability to protect the American people from Iran's terrorist regime. I believe that this resolution--and maybe misunderstood--sends a troubling message to our troops and a perhaps interpreted welcome message to our enemy.
The War Powers Act is very clear. Enacted in 1973, it requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces, and the President has 60 days before he must seek congressional approval.
President Trump has clearly acted within the provisions of the War Powers Act. President Obama, on the other hand, used these authorities to launch operations in Libya for over 7 months, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. President Biden invoked the same authorities for strikes against threats in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Yet no resolution to limit those Presidents was brought up in this House by our colleagues.
As Secretary Rubio said, and he described in great detail, there was an imminent threat upon the United States and our allies from Iran.
Speaker Johnson also warned: The idea that Congress would now take away the ability of the Commander in Chief is dangerous and is a threat to the safety of the United States of America.
We must remember whom we are dealing with. We are dealing with Iran, which has been a terrorist state for 47 years. Its proxies range from Hezbollah to Hamas to the Houthis, and the list goes on. Directly and through these proxies, Iran has maimed and killed thousands of Americans. They orchestrated the massacre in Israel on October 7. We know this.
They are, in fact, doing their utmost to continue enriching uranium to make it weapons grade. According to Special Envoy Witkoff, just the other day, the Iranian negotiators opened negotiations by bragging about presently controlling 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, enough weapons-grade material for 11 bombs within 4 to 6 weeks.
Because of this regime's reign of terror, their own civilians rose up and protested, Mr. Speaker. Over the last 2 months, there are reports that as many as 90,000 Iranian civilians were murdered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump has strategically developed regional trust throughout the Middle East. This is why we have a strong coalition in this region to confront this threat. Today, Iran is an island thanks to the strategy of the Trump administration.
The Iran of the past, one that oppresses and commits terrorism and all kinds of atrocities on its own people and the world, is history.
Mr. Speaker, from his first day in public office, President Trump has made it clear that he wants to rule America by imperial decree. He didn't want to be king just for a day in America. He wants to be king of the universe. Congress is just a nuisance that can be avoided, the courts are an occasional speed bump, and international law is just a suggestion to this President.
In his decree declaring war on Iran, he glibly responded to the loss of American lives by saying: ``That's the way it is.''
With no clear objectives, no approval from the Congress, and no commitment to keep the ground troops out, more American deaths and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted will be ``the way it is.''
We know that in this regard, Trump is not America First. At best, he is America second, as Secretary Rubio confessed this week.
Trump is too weak to follow President Bush's wise example of saying no to Netanyahu. He has dragged us into a war without an imminent threat. He
The last war like that cost 4,400 American lives and $2 trillion of taxpayer money.
While certainly I do not mourn the death of any of these despots in Iran who have done so much harm, under Trump's clueless approach, we may just be replacing one tyrant with another. We already see what is happening to our embassies, our military facilities, and our airports where many Americans are stranded abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this resolution to stop Trump's forever war. Unless it is approved, Trump will only be encouraged to grab more and more power on his drive for total authoritarian, one-man rule in this country and the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think I figured something out. If my colleagues keep saying that 4 days is forever, then maybe that is why they can't talk about what imminent threat means. They can't figure out the definition of these things.
Imminent threat, I have done pretty well to define what makes Iran a imminent threat. They don't want to speak about that. They don't even want to acknowledge it a little bit that, hey, maybe there is even a little chance that Iran could attack us this day. They don't even want to acknowledge it the slightest bit. They want to paint it as though it is just black and white, no shot whatsoever, no threat at all coming from Iran, even though they voted for things to say: Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
It is amazing to me, even though they have difficulty defining other words as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this War Powers Resolution. This is a war of choice disguised as a war of necessity.
During the last several days, President Trump offered a shifting list of justifications: regime change; retribution; helping protesters; stopping Iran's missile and nuclear weapons program, a program that Trump claimed just last year that he obliterated; and a ballistic missile program that the Department of Defense says is not going to be capable of reaching the U.S. until 2035.
The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, offered another. He said that we had to strike first in case Iran might retaliate after a possible Israeli attack.
Think about that. It is not because Iran posed an imminent threat, not because Congress authorized war, but because someone else might attack.
This is not a strategy. This is cherry-picking facts and lying to the American public to justify a predetermined decision to launch a war.
So Americans are asking two questions: Why are we doing this?
And how does it end?
The Constitution is clear. The President cannot start a war alone.
We need to make sure that the people's Representatives are involved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
That is because once troops are in harm's way, missions expand, and working families get a knock on the door that changes their lives forever.
The cost of this war will not just be measured by dollars spent but in lives lost, bodies broken, and conflicts that rarely stay confined to where they began.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to be clear about what this resolution is not. It is not a vote for or against war with Iran. It is not an authorization for use of military force. It does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not restrict our U.S. military from protecting our troops or our assets or our interests.
Mr. Speaker, you may have heard some of those claims on the other side today. They are wrong.
What is the War Powers Resolution?
What is it?
It is simple. It simply requires hostilities to stop unless and until Congress does what the Constitution says it should do: authorize them. That is what the Constitution says. It affirms a basic principle: No President can take this action or take this Nation to war against whomever whenever that President wishes to do it without congressional authorization.
This is a war. The administration has said so themselves. We have heard many Members on the other side of the aisle say this is a war. This is a war, but it is a war of choice, not a war authorized by the United States Congress.
In the administration's own war powers notification--and if you haven't read it, we will give it to you--they do not use or mention the word ``imminent'' at all, not once. The administration has presented no imminent threat. Why? It is because it cannot.
I want to give my colleagues the definition of the word ``imminent.'' If it was so imminent, Donald Trump didn't do anything when he was the President before.
How long will this war last? We don't know. The administration doesn't seem to know. Their stated objectives are expansive and shifting every day. They seem to shift. One day I heard them say it was regime change. The next day I heard them say it is nuclear weapons. Then after that, it was ballistic missiles, and then we heard the Secretary of State say Israel was going to strike first, and so we felt we had to. Otherwise, Iran would strike first.
Mr. Speaker, this administration's case for war makes the Bush administration's weapons of mass destruction story look like a well- documented Ph.D. dissertation.
Now, to the Members of Congress who disagree with my opposition to this war: I disagree because I have listened and I have heard, and I disagree with this war. But I say to them: If you disagree with this war, it is your prerogative, but you should vote. We should have a vote.
This vote is not about whether or not you support military action. It is about whether you believe Congress should have a say. In essence, it kind of meant should we exist. The Constitution said we should exist. We were created as a country because they were running from a king who did not want a Congress, who didn't have a Congress, who could just do whatever he wanted.
That is why the first thing that the Founders said is Congress should be the only one that had the power. Leader Jeffries said--and he went back to a Republican Member of the House of Representatives, Abraham Lincoln, who said: ``The provisions of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us''--no one man.
We took an oath. We swore to uphold Article I of the Constitution. Our constituents expect us to deliberate on matters of war and peace.
Did we deliberate on it? No.
Have we had hearings in the House Foreign Affairs Committee? No.
Have we had Mr. Jared Kushner here to talk about it? He was supposed to have been negotiating. No.
Have we had Steve Witkoff here? No.
Have we had anyone other than--they came for other reasons; we were able to ask a few questions--than Secretary Rubio come? No.
Has there been not dialogue and conversation? We have the so-called Gang of Eight, and they want to say that is
How many times has the Gang of Eight met? Once. Speaker Johnson would say that is sufficient. Even in that, this imminent strike was never mentioned. We heard from Mr. Himes, who is part of the Gang of Eight. The next time the Gang of Eight was heard was only a few hours before the one who wants to be king said he was going to attack. That is the only dialogue and conversation that took place before the strike.
There has been no debate on the floor, no trying to talk to the Members of Congress and, most importantly, the American people because just before the State of the Union, when the President had the whole world, we heard a whole 2-hour speech, the longest in the history of these United States of America, Iran was hardly a mention. If it was an imminent threat, I would think he would want to tell the Nation at that time that we had to do something imminently.
We have soldiers who have died, and the President starts talking about curtains and reconstruction and putting gold things up because he likes it. He told families, Gold Star families now unfortunately, that it wasn't serious enough.
This is a serious situation. Congress is a coequal branch of government. The Framers vested the war powers in this body because they believed no single person should bring this Nation to war alone, and so today we either defend our principles or surrender it. I urge my colleagues to join me in defending it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended with: ``This is serious.''
This is serious. It is more serious than when my colleagues can't even acknowledge a hint of an emergency, a hint of imminence related to the threat of Iran--there is nothing to see there--even though last Congress so many of them voted, including Ranking Member Meeks, to say use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Why would they say ``all means necessary''? I guess it is because a year ago they believed it to be that imminent, that important.
It was said by the ranking member, their bill doesn't prevent the U.S. from defending ourselves. It literally does. Let me read the text for you: `` . . . directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war . . . `'
That means the President cannot go out there and defend the United States of America. It is saying the President has no Article II authority to go out there and defend the United States of America. That is literally what they are saying.
He said our hostilities must stop, but I can promise you, the hostilities of Iran will not stop, have never stopped until the United States of America makes this decision to stop them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump for having the courage, the strength, and the resolve to stop the imminent threat of Iran from attacking the United States of America as they have week after week, year after year for the last 47 years. It is the very definition of imminent.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 38, Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran have had an adversarial relationship since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In 1979, Iranian theocratic revolutionaries removed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was a close U.S. ally. and the current Islamic Republic was declared. The establishment of the Islamic Republic, also known as the Iranian regime, in conjunction with the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, laid the groundwork for the United States to have no diplomatic relations with Iran beginning in 1980.
Since 1979, the United States has used sanctions and diplomacy to deter, constrain, and encourage the Iranian regime to change its egregious behavior. That behavior includes supporting terrorism at home and becoming the globe's largest state sponsor of terrorism, developing a nuclear weapon program, proliferation activities, destabilizing the region through its ballistic missile and drone development, and attacks directly and indirectly killing Americans for over four decades. That sanction posture is now over four decades old.
In 1979, the Carter Administration imposed sanctions on Iran in response to the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress expanded sanctions on Iran to deter and compel the Iranian regime to stop supporting international terrorism and its pursuit of advanced weapons. including chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the United States and our allies learned about previously undisclosed nuclear facilities in Iran. In response. the United States and our allies imposed further sanctions on Iran to convince the Iranian regime to limit its nuclear activities. The Iranian regime did not stop or limit the activities, so in 2006 the United Nations Security Council imposed multinational sanctions preventing trade with Iran. In 2009. the Iranian regime violently cracked down on mass protests over its 2009 presidential election. In response, Congress targeted more sanctions on Iran that aimed at Iran's oil exports and economic sector. Congress determined that to lift those sanctions, the Iranian regime must stop its support of international terrorism and end its proliferation activities. That has never happened, as the Iranian regime is the number one state sponsor of terrorism and has continued to pursue nuclear and advanced weapons.
In 2015, the Obama Administration tried a new approach of appeasement and entered the United States into the disastrous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA). This is also known as the ``2015 Iran nuclear deal,'' which required Iran to curb its nuclear program, reduce uranium enrichment by 98 percent, and dismantle most centrifuges. In exchange, the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom agreed to provide significant relief from international sanctions imposed on Iran. This deal was disastrous because Iran continued to enrich uranium and pursue their nuclear weapons goals. In addition to that disastrous policy, the Obama Administration transferred $1.7 billion in cash to Iran in January 2016. On top of that, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal allowed billions in new commerce to flow into Iran. Again, remember that the Iranian regime is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. That money benefited the Iranian regime's dangerous behavior.
In 2018, President Trump pulled the United States out of the disastrous 2015 Iran nuclear deal and announced that the United States would reimpose sanctions on Iran. With no delay, Iran escalated its regional military activities, which included directly attacking the United States forces in the region.
The Biden Administration was unable to deter the Iranian regime. In addition, the Biden Administration recklessly provided Iran with sanctions relief that gave Iran access to approximately 816 billion in previously frozen funds. Those shortsighted actions of the Biden Administration sadly played a part in the build-up of the October 7th attack on Israel by the Iranian regime-backed terrorist organization, Hamas. In response, Congress passed new sanctions on any foreign financial institution that engages in transactions with the $6 billion in Iranian funds. In 2024, my bill, the Holding Iranian Leaders Accountable Act, was signed into law to expose the Iranian regime's financial corruption.
In 2025, back in the White House, the Trump Administration renewed a ``Maximum Pressure'' campaign on the Iranian regime. The actions by President Trump and his Administration recognize that nearly five decades of sanctions imposed bilaterally and by the United Nations have failed to stop Iran's destructive ambitions. The Trump Administration recognizes that years of intensive but ultimately futile negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program accomplished nothing and were rightly rejected by bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate at the end of the Obama Administration.
Today, the House is considering a War Powers Resolution. This War Powers Resolution does not account for the nearly five decades of history. This resolution is not about whether we support the major combat operation that is currently ongoing in Iran--it is about curbing the power of the Executive Branch, specifically the President, to protect the United States from the Iranian regime. Taking away the authorities granted to the President under the War Powers Resolution in the very midst of an ongoing major combat operation is reckless and shortsighted.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 38.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, supportive of this measure which would bring an end to United States involvement in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Decisions of war and peace are some of the most serious and consequential that could be
This is precisely what is happening to us today. President Trump, emboldened by a questionable operation in Venezuela and manipulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu, has sacrificed American lives and military resources in a regime change operation. The American people have been very vocal with their elected officials. They are tired of war. They want us to focus our energy and treasure on improving American lives at home.
War in all its forms is Hell. Only occasionally, and after careful consideration, can this Hell on Earth be considered necessary. It is Congress' duty to conduct this deliberation, and to ensure no one person can declare war. Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority to declare war. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of March 3, 2026, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Thornton Fire Department, the Thornton Police Department, and every assisting first responder who rushed to the scene last week to extinguish a suburban wildfire in my district.
As a former cop and Army National Guard Black Hawk helicopter pilot who fought wildfires, I am proud of these first responders and their continued dedication to protecting our communities. What could have been a devastating disaster resulted in no loss of life or homes thanks to these brave heroes.
However, as the Marshall fire, the worst wildfire in Colorado history, reminds us, suburban wildfires can become catastrophic, and emergency management funding is critical in disaster-prone regions like Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my Democrat colleagues to vote in favor of the Department of Homeland Security's appropriation bill and restore FEMA funding, emergency management funding, for my constituents and for constituents around the country.
Mr. Speaker, too many Americans cannot afford their health insurance. Medical facilities are facing serious cutbacks and staff shortages. Housing is unaffordable for millions of our people, and the cost of living is getting out of hand.
Instead of addressing any one of these critical issues here at home, this weekend, the Trump-Vance administration singularly launched a regime-change war on Iran. Significant U.S. military forces and hundreds of millions of dollars are being deployed without congressional authorization.
As a cosponsor of the Iran War Powers Resolution, I know that no such vote was called in either Chamber of Congress prior to this profound and unprecedented military action.
As Americans from coast to coast honor the sacrifice of the six brave servicemembers who already lost their lives in this war, our people have a right to hear debate before more U.S. troops and military assets are sent abroad. Billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being expended in this war which could last for weeks or months or years.
The economic impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is already being felt. Yesterday, the price of gasoline was bobbing up and down, up and down. The American people deserve affordability, not more foreign wars.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Iranian regime as it threatens the United States and our ally Israel.
Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror, bankrolling the heinous terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
The regime and its proxies seek to destroy America and Israel and wreak havoc across the Middle East.
Let me be clear: Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and the United States must always be prepared to act to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Our Nation is eternally grateful to the brave servicemembers who are keeping us safe, and we mourn those who have been lost in the line of duty.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the administration will come to Congress with a plan and work with us to counter Iran's aggression and protect our country.
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 topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, America often faces difficult moments and difficult choices. Presidents are no different. They oftentimes have to face difficult decisions, and I hope that Members of this body will think about their vote as they decide whether to support the President in this effort or not and apply the same standard.
I have always thought to try and apply the same standard, whether the President belongs to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, apply the same standard.
I rise today in support of President Trump's action against Iran. The Iranian regime has been threatening America for nearly 50 years. It has killed countless American citizens, and it has brutally killed our servicemembers.
I had a gentleman in my district come up to me the other day. This was before the President took action, and he said: We must take action. He said: I have lost 20 of my friends to the Iranians, to their terror throughout the years. He had served 24 years in the United States Army.
In years prior, we have had Presidents use strikes against our enemies and have done it without congressional approval because the Constitution does a couple of things. In Article I, it gives Congress the power to declare war, but in Article II, it gives the President the power to be the Commander in Chief. Our Founders intentionally made it inherently contradict in that way.
They wanted to diffuse power. They didn't want to give all the power to Congress, and they didn't want to give all the power to the President of the United States, so they intentionally did that. Presidents throughout time have used that.
Thomas Jefferson in the First Barbary War did not come to Congress. He deployed troops in the Barbary War. The War of 1812, the same thing was done, although Congress did come back and authorize and declare war. It wasn't done at first.
We have had Presidents use these strikes against our enemies without
Mr. Speaker, that is not a standard any of us should apply. I would hope, as a legislator--I wasn't here when Bill Clinton was President. I wasn't here when Barack Obama was President. I can say that I had a public life then. I didn't go out and attack the President of the United States at that time.
I am here to support the men and women of the military and the Presidents who have to make tough decisions from time to time. For some reason, on the other side of the aisle, many want to make a political statement rather than just let the President use his legal authority as Commander in Chief, as stated in the Constitution.
Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have attempted to negotiate deals with this Iranian regime, only to be met with lies and deception. We have seen it time and time again.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. If President Trump had not acted, every American life in the region would have been in immediate peril.
The President and his administration have set clear goals. What are they? They are to annihilate their nuclear capabilities, to annihilate their Navy, and to annihilate their missile and delivery capability. This will save the globe from Iran's regime of terror.
Time and time again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that any military action will draw us into a long-term war. They say it is going to happen. Just a few short months ago in Venezuela, we had folks who said: Well, why didn't the President come to Congress and have us declare war?
Did we declare war on Venezuela? No. Are we at war with Venezuela? No. It was a 1-day action that the President has the authority to undertake as Commander in Chief of the United States military.
It didn't happen in Venezuela. They told us that the President will draw us into a long-term conflict. It didn't happen in Operation Midnight Hammer when the President ordered B-2 bombers to deliver strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. It is not going to happen now.
President Trump made every effort to find a peaceful and negotiated solution to this crisis. Ayatollah Khamenei only sought death to America. He had no intention of negotiating.
In fact, for 47 years, this regime has simply used deception, lies, and deals to kick the can down the road so that they could pursue their nuclear ambitions. They were never giving up on that. They didn't give up on it after Operation Midnight Hammer and not until this regime has ended.
Due to Khamenei's death, I believe the United States has avoided a prolonged conflict that would have killed many Americans. I find some of the comments by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle outlandish, and I hope that they will choose.
So many say they support the nation of Israel. So many can stand up and say they support our men and women in the military. It is time to choose. Will they choose to defend our Nation first instead of their political games directed at a President? If they choose political games directed at a President, when this President is gone, they will have damaged the institution of the Presidency. They will have damaged the honor of this House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is adjacent to some of the most important military apparatuses of our country, USAFA, where we share a border. I appreciate his focus on such a strong need for our military.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my excitement, which I don't often say, my excitement for this tax season. Those are not words I oftentimes say, nor do many Americans. There is reason to be excited this year in the wake of passing incredibly important, progrowth tax policy last summer, which the House Republicans led and then signed into law. This is historic relief.
The thing I wanted to highlight is what we are providing for working families and everyday Americans. In that, there is one specific thing that I wanted to highlight. That is Trump Accounts. These are the new investment accounts for children. Invest America has been an initiative for several years. It has been a thought and an idea for even longer, decades even. We were able to get this signed into law, and it will be enacted and started later this year.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk a little bit more about what the process is and what this actually is. This is a transformational investment for kids in every ZIP Code. It doesn't matter if a person lives in an apartment, a big city, or on a country road out in rural America. Our kids will have access to something that most people don't take advantage of until they are well into their careers.
Trump Accounts allow parents, guardians, and other custodians to establish a new type of tax-advantaged individual savings and investment account for children. As part of a special pilot program, every American child born between January 1, 2025--more than a year ago--and December 31, 2028, is eligible to receive an automatic deposit of $1,000 from the U.S. Government into their accounts, giving every newborn a stake in the future success of the American economy.
Parents can also contribute up to $5,000 per year and employers up to $2,500 per year. State, local, and Tribal governments, as well as charities, can also contribute.
We have seen significant interest in this program, including an incredible contribution of $6.25 billion with a b from Michael and Susan Dell and their family's private foundation. That contribution is going to be geared toward those children who were born in the last 10 years. The initiative that we passed this year will be focused on the next 4 years.
What Michael and Susan Dell have done is they contributed over $6 billion to start these accounts and seed them with money for children, essentially ages 2 through 10, in neighborhoods and communities across our country. This will get them started. They have this investment account that they will have, as I mentioned, well into their careers. I think it essentially gives them a 30-year head start on their retirements.
At the very heart of this policy is the goal of providing opportunities for Americans at that very early age. Good government policy empowers the individual. It nurtures and encourages the best of human ingenuity and, of course, human progress. That is exactly what these investment accounts aim to do.
The United States boasts the world's strongest economy. Thanks to strong capital markets and household investments, we can contribute to our communities, society, and economy. We can improve our overall quality of life and seek financial realities better than the ones from which we came.
However, wealth and opportunity gaps prevent millions of people from taking advantage of the capital markets that could help build household wealth.
Capitalism is the gateway to opportunity and helping our youth realize the power of compounding interest and how it could change their lives. These accounts will play a key role in it.
The fact that we have, at the age of 4--I have a 4-year-old. The fact that Frankie will have an account that is tied to him, and he will be able to monitor that. When he is 10, he will understand it a bit better. He won't understand it right now.
Think about it. When he goes to a fifth grade class and the teacher says: ``Hey, everybody. Pull out your investment account.'' There is a good chance they have all signed up for it if we have done our jobs. We have 435 Members of this body. If we do our jobs in communicating this benefit to our constituents, this will grow. This program will be wildly successful. They will be able to say: Hey, look, it started at X. Now it is at Y.
They have an extra 20 bucks that month for some chores that they did. They are going to put an extra 20 bucks in it. A grandparent is going to say that every grandkid gets $2,000 this year.
That is the best investment in their kids. Instead of buying an extra pair of shoes sometimes, they will put money
This is a historic new savings tool. More Americans will be saving. They will be investing and building a solid financial footing.
These accounts have the potential to help children accrue tens of thousands of dollars by the time they reach adulthood. That can make the difference in so many lives when it comes to paying for college, building their first home, starting their own business, and what I am most hopeful for, and what I will continue to put the focus on is as they save for their own retirement.
I think typical IRAs, Roth 401(k)'s, or Roth IRAs, anything of the like, you are typically maybe 30 years old when you start your first one. Think about starting that 30 years earlier. It is a small amount of money to start, but that is going to grow for 30 years, where they wouldn't have otherwise had that.
This is a game changer. These accounts will come online July 5 of this year, 2026, but here is the important part: Parents can create an account today for their children. Those born between 2025 and 2028 will have their accounts seeded with $1,000, but, again, every child under age 18 can have an account.
To be an American is to win life's lottery. We live in the greatest Nation in the world with tremendous freedoms and unparalleled opportunities. We have the ability to chase the American Dream from childhood through retirement, and these accounts will help more people achieve it.
I am really excited about these accounts and what this means to the next generation. It is good for Utahns. It is good for working families, and it is good for our country's future.
I urge everyone to take advantage of this and sign up today at trumpaccounts.gov.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Martin Hogan for being named the grand marshal of Savannah's 202nd St. Patrick's Day Parade.
Mr. Hogan was chosen from hundreds of nominees to lead the parade and represent the community. Savannah's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade is one of the largest festivals in the country and has been taking place for more than 200 years.
Each year, the fountain in Forsyth Park is dyed green, and thousands of people travel to Savannah to celebrate.
Mr. Hogan hopes to bring back deeper meaning to the holidays, focusing on the importance of the St. Patrick's Day feast, not just the mischief and fun, and there is plenty of that.
Martin is a logistics and trucking professional who has many years of experience and has made significant contributions to the community. Mr. Hogan is a dedicated and hardworking individual who is more than qualified for this role.
We are excited to see Mr. Hogan represent the city of Savannah with honor and distinction.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Linda Davis, the beloved special education teacher who was tragically taken from us on February 16, 2026.
A native of Beaufort, South Carolina, she made her home in Pooler, Georgia, bringing warmth and positivity to every community she touched.
In her first year at Hesse K-8 School in Savannah, Dr. Davis taught young students with special needs, greeting each with an infectious smile, patience, and belief in their potential.
For nearly 18 years, Linda devoted her career to education, creating nurturing spaces where every child felt seen and valued. Colleagues recall her kindness and her ability to make everyone feel that they truly mattered.
A devoted wife, a mother of five, sister, and mentor, Linda loved dancing, singing, and family.
Linda's was a life taken too soon by an individual fleeing ICE, who never should have been in our country in the first place.
May we cherish educators like Dr. Linda Davis, who shaped brighter futures one child at a time.
I thank Linda for her beautiful spirit. She is deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Visit Savannah as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. This marks a significant milestone for the city's journey in becoming a major tourist destination.
Visit Savannah began its work by attempting to attract drivers off of the interstate. The organization has now grown into a major contributor to the major growth of Savannah's tourism industry. Visit Savannah attracts approximately 16 million visitors each year, generating billions of dollars in economic impact.
Savannah is Georgia's third biggest city and now one of the most popular places to visit. Visit Savannah has generated $4.1 billion in direct spending annually.
The city's tourism has not only generated over 28,000 local jobs but also improved infrastructure and advanced the culinary scene across Savannah and Chatham County.
We thank Visit Savannah for 50 years of dedicated and impactful service to Georgia's First District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the remarkable 20-year tenure of Steven C. Anderson as president and CEO of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
Mr. Anderson has announced his retirement from NACDS, effective at the end of this year. Under his leadership, NACDS transformed from a challenging period into one of the Nation's strongest and most respected healthcare trade associations.
Mr. Anderson guided the organization through the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, rebuilding its foundation for long- term strength, contributing to America's recovery, and elevating the organization into a trusted source for research and policy.
His tenure has shaped pharmacy's vital role, helping shift community pharmacies from underappreciated to essential frontline providers of care. His efforts led to landmark PBM reform legislation, helping to deliver transparency and accountability.
Steve's legacy is one of unity, innovation, and commitment to advancing pharmacy's mission and serving communities and families.
Mr. Speaker, we thank Steve Anderson for two decades of transformational and dedicated service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize American bobsledder, Elana Meyers Taylor.
After making Team USA for the 2026 Winter Olympics, which made her a five-time Olympian, Elana went on to bring home the gold medal in women's monobob.
A Douglasville, Georgia, native and George Washington University graduate, Meyers exhibits true sportsmanship and grit, highlighting outstanding American athleticism.
Since 2007, Elana has been a dominant force in bobsledding. In 2009, she secured a silver medal in the two-woman bobsled at the FIBT World Championships. She won a bronze medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics and a silver medal at the 2014 Winter Olympics.
In 2010, she also helped the U.S. win its first women's Bobsled World Championship title by beating three German teams. In the 2018 Olympics, she continued her storied history of success, winning another silver medal.
This year, though, she added to her titles of oldest Olympic bobsled medalist, mother, and comeback athlete, finishing her event in 3 minutes, 57.93 seconds, and earning that of Olympic gold medalist.
We are all so proud of Elana and how she has represented both Team USA and the wonderful State of Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the relaunching of Miss Sophie's restaurant.
The restaurant located in Pooler, Georgia, was relaunched under new ownership at the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force.
Miss Sophie's was first founded in 2006 by Hazlehurst, Georgia, native Teri Bell and her husband, Steve.
It will now be owned and operated by Kay Heritage, the founder of Big Bon Bodega, an award-winning restaurant that has been featured on Food Network's ``Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives.''
The new owner will be joined by her partner and executive chef. Together, they are known for their love of quality food and hope to continue Teri's vision and honor her legacy in Pooler, continuing a tradition that the community loves by serving classic southern lunch favorites.
We thank Kay Heritage for her hard work and dedication, and we are excited to see Miss Sophie's continuing to serve the people of Pooler.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bland Farms in Glennville, Georgia, for winning the Grower of the Year Award from the Vidalia Onion Committee. This award has been given continuously since 1991 and is a testament to the long history of onion farming in the Vidalia area.
For almost 80 years, Bland Farms has been producing high-quality Vidalia onions, now consumed around the world. Their family-run farm has been instrumental in expanding the distribution and recognition of official Vidalia sweet onions.
In 1995, Bland Farms entered the frozen market, quickly becoming the Nation's third largest distributor of frozen onion products. In the past few years, Bland Farms has implemented cutting-edge technology to improve cold storage and quality assurance of their products.
I also recognize the work of the Vidalia Onion Committee for its dedication to upholding quality and expanding access to our official Georgia State Vegetable.
Vidalia sweet onions have protected status, an official growing area in south Georgia, and strict quality control. The Vidalia Onion Committee works tirelessly to uphold these standards.
Once again, I congratulate Bland Farms on their exceptional work this past year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Andruw Jones, the legendary center fielder for the Atlanta Braves, who has been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame as part of the Class of 2026.
This honor celebrates the extraordinary talent and athleticism he brought to baseball, especially during Atlanta's golden era of dominance, making him the eighth member of the Braves' 1997 team to be elected.
Mr. Jones exemplifies Georgia's fighting spirit. He burst onto the scene as a 19-year-old, homering twice in his first World Series game in 1996, becoming the youngest ever to do so, and helping fuel 14 straight division titles.
A ten-time Gold Glove winner, five-time All-Star, and powerhouse with 434 home runs, he inspired generations, while proudly carrying the torch from Willie Mays, who once declared him the best center fielder he had seen.
Mr. Jones' induction on July 26 is a triumph for Braves nation and our great State of Georgia. Go Braves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Donald Chase, who has been elected chairman of the Georgia Peanut Commission.
The Georgia Peanut Commission was founded in 1961 and represents more than 4,000 peanut farm families across the State of Georgia.
Mr. Chase was chosen to lead this historically vital organization as the number one crop in Georgia, succeeding Joe Boddiford, due to his long experience as a grower and prior service as vice chairman.
In his own words, 2026 marks a year of change for the commission, yet its core mission remains steadfast: delivering real value to every Georgia peanut farmer. He and the board pledge that their commitment to ensuring farmers' investments yield meaningful dividends through smart research, promotion, and education. Mr. Chase's leadership will help safeguard and strengthen Georgia's position as the Nation's top peanut- producing state.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the best of luck to Chairman Donald Chase and the Georgia Peanut Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Cecil C. Holt, Jr., who sadly passed away at the age of 87 earlier this month. Born in Ambrose, Georgia, Cecil built something extraordinary from humble beginnings.
In 1965, he founded Holt's Bakery into which he poured his heart, unmatched work ethic, and entrepreneurial spirit, growing it into a business that became iconic across South Georgia. What started with him and his beloved wife, Lucille, has grown into a family tradition that has delighted generations.
Even after a severe heart attack, his innovative spirit never faded. He continued inventing, always living by his catch phrase ``never give up.''
In Waycross, Holt's Sweet Shop stands as a shining testament to his vision, serving as a cherished spot where locals still line up for the best goods around. His sweet shop locations, like Waycross, keep his legacy alive, sweetening mornings and bringing smiles to hundreds of faces a day.
He leaves a family and a community forever enriched.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the gracious life of Sandra Waters Parker, who sadly passed away on February 3.
Mrs. Parker was born in Brunswick, Georgia, as the eldest of seven children. She lived in Darien for 57 years, graduating Darien High as vice president of her class and receiving the highest honor of valedictorian.
Mrs. Parker worked for the State of Georgia for 35 years in both the Department of Family and Children Services and the McIntosh County Chamber of Commerce.
For more than 70 years, Mrs. Parker was an active and devoted member of Crescent Baptist Church, holding the roles of Sunday school teacher, pianist, and treasurer.
Mrs. Parker will be remembered for her kind, generous, and honorable heart, serving her family, her State, and church diligently and compassionately.
Mr. Speaker, I pray for her family and friends in this time of grief, but find comfort in the fact Sandra has walked through the pearly gates.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rear Admiral Jay Clark. On February 5, Rear Admiral Clark assumed command of the Carrier Strike Group One based in San Diego, California.
Rear Admiral Clark is a Pembroke, Georgia, native and graduate of Bryan County High School.
He was previously the director of the Navy's Culture and Force Resilience Office and commanding officer of the USS Roosevelt, among other prestigious positions. His continued service to our Nation is indicative of South Georgia's broader commitment to serving our country and its Navy.
Carrier Strike Group One has a deep history of protecting our Pacific coast and broader interests abroad. Recently, CSG-1 conducted strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, protecting American shipping in the Red Sea.
Today, we celebrate Rear Admiral Clark's achievements and wish him and Carrier Strike Group One the best in their next deployment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Fernando Foster, the newly elected president of 100 Black Men of Savannah, whose leadership promises real progress for our children. After 15 years of devoted service, including three as vice president, Foster began his presidency on January 1.
A respected mentor and community advocate, he brings both deep experience and bold vision to this historic organization dedicated to empowering African-American youth.
Foster's agenda is centered around a transformative initiative known as The 100 Reads Program, which seeks to enhance literacy among children in Savannah. This program is designed to engage students through innovative reading strategies, fostering a love for literature, while improving educational outcomes. By prioritizing education, Foster and The 100 Black Men
I congratulate President Fernando Foster for his focus on literacy as the foundation of opportunity and his resolve to inspire Savannah's next generation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize former Dawg and current Los Angeles Rams quarterback, Matthew Stafford, on winning the NFL Most Valuable Player Award.
In the closest race since the 2003 co-winners, Stafford beat out Steve McNair and secured the honor, becoming the oldest player in NFL history at the time of his first MVP.
In 2006, Stafford became the first true freshman quarterback to start for the Georgia Bulldogs since Quincy Carter. While at Georgia, he sported number 7 and finished his 3 years at Georgia with a 3-0 record in bowl games and a 6-3 record in rivalry games.
While playing college ball, Stafford won many awards and honors, including SEC Freshman of the Week and the MVP of the 2009 Capital One Bowl.
When entering the NFL, Stafford became the first overall pick of the 2009 draft and since then has played for the Detroit Lions and the Los Angeles Rams.
We are incredibly proud of Stafford and look forward to the great things he does next. Once a Dawg, always a Dawg.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize former Georgia Bulldog Assistant Coach Mike Macdonald for leading the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl LX victory.
He is the third youngest head coach in NFL history to win a Super Bowl.
Coach Macdonald attended the University of Georgia in 2010, studying finance, and graduated summa cum laude.
He started his coaching career as a graduate assistant at Cedar Shoals High School in Athens before joining the Georgia Bulldogs' coaching staff as a graduate assistant.
Coach Macdonald joined the Baltimore Ravens' coaching staff in 2014, became the defensive coordinator for the Michigan Wolverines in 2021, and then returned to the Ravens in 2022.
In 2024, Coach Macdonald was hired by the Seattle Seahawks as their head coach.
We are proud to see a Georgia Bulldog succeed on the biggest stage in football.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two- time Super Bowl champion Ernest Jones IV on his recent Super Bowl win over the New England Patriots.
Before becoming a starter for the South Carolina Gamecocks, Ernest had a standout high school career in Waycross, Georgia.
After college, he was drafted in the third round of the 2021 NFL Draft, with his career being a testament to persistence and resilience.
He started out in Los Angeles before bouncing through some trades and found his home in Seattle, where his regular-season stats included 124 tackles and 5 interceptions.
Jones is one of the league's most disruptive linebackers. The Seahawks' victory marked his second championship title and showcased the dedication and drive of the Georgia-born linebacker.
This win is more than just another ring. It is a heartfelt demonstration of a journey filled with personal adversity, including the loss of his father last year.
Georgia is proud of Ernest Jones and wishes him continued success in his football career.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate three talented students from Augusta University: Lahari, Avery, and Anna.
These talented young leaders have rightfully earned their spot in the Georgia Legislative Internship Program for the 2026 session.
These students are immersed in the State capitol, gaining hands-on experience in the legislative process and public service.
Lahari, a junior from Cumming studying criminal justice, is eager to see how bills become law and how these laws directly impact real people.
Anna, a senior political science major, is thrilled to shadow legislators, monitor meetings, and observe the policymaking process up close under the Gold Dome.
Avery, a junior political science major from Lawrenceville, has long been drawn to history and government.
These students are forging lifelong networks, meeting Georgia leaders, and discovering how laws shape lives and livelihoods.
This service represents the highest form of public service in our great State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two brave Gwinnett County police officers who ran toward danger in the name of serving their community.
On February 1, officers Pradeep Tamang and David Reed responded to a routine fraud call at a Holiday Inn near Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Invited into a hotel room by Kevin Andrews to discuss the matter, they were ambushed. The suspect opened fire, striking both officers. In the exchange, one officer returned fire, wounding the suspect, who survived and now faces justice.
Tragically, Officer Tamang, who joined the force just last year, succumbed to his injuries and passed away. He is a hero.
Corporal Reed remains in serious but stable condition, fighting for recovery.
We owe them our deepest gratitude for their courage and sacrifice in keeping our communities and our State safe.
May we never forget those who put their lives on the line for us all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kendria Lee, associate vice president for external affairs at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia.
Kendria has been named an Emerging Leader recipient in the 2026 Leadership Forum by Leadership Southeast Georgia. This recognition honors outstanding individuals who demonstrate exceptional impact, vision, and dedication in advancing community and institutional goals.
Ms. Lee exemplifies this through her leadership and community engagement initiatives and by fostering partnerships with economic development agencies, stakeholders, and regional leaders to align the university's mission with broader goals.
She is a proud Double Eagle alumna with an M.B.A. and a B.B.A. in information services from Parker College of Business.
Kendria graduated from Leadership Georgia and holds board positions with Synovus, Goodwill Southeast Georgia, and Junior Achievement of Savannah.
Ms. Lee's passion for building meaningful connections and executing impactful initiatives is an inspiration to all.
This honor reflects not only her expertise but her unwavering collaboration and commitment to elevating Georgia Southern University and Georgia's communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Greg Parker, who has been given a 2026 Legacy Leader Award by the Southeast Georgia Leadership Forum.
Greg is the founder and executive chairman of Parker's Kitchen, a convenience store chain that has earned the honor of Convenience Store Chain of the Year and is known for high-quality foodservice, strategic growth, and cutting-edge technology.
On top of building a successful business, Greg has been recognized as Foodservice Leader of the Year, Tech Executive of the Year, Citizen of the Year, and Entrepreneur of the Year, among many other accolades.
While Greg's business impact is significant, his love and admiration for his community are even greater. Greg has donated more than $30 million to make a transformative impact across Georgia and South Carolina in four key areas: education, hunger, healthcare, and heroes.
We are honored to have a leader like Greg advocate for Georgia's communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kay Ford as a recipient of the 2026 Legacy Leader Award.
Mrs. Ford is the definition of a driven and committed leader, currently serving as chair of BankSouth's advisory board for the Savannah market.
She has held numerous senior-level positions within retail banking and private wealth management, including becoming the first female chair of the Savannah Economic Development Authority Board of Directors in its century-long history.
Throughout her career, Ford has served on a wide variety of community-driven boards, like the Savannah Fund for Excellence in Education, St. Mary's Home, and Senior Citizens, Incorporated.
Her passion for engaging and contributing to her community is a testimony to the servant-leader she is: tireless, inclusive, and invested in making her community stronger.
From business ventures to community involvement, Kay Ford has left a positive impact on the southeast Georgia community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Sandra Collins, who passed away on January 29 at the age of 81.
A lifelong member of St. Philip Monumental A.M.E. Church in Savannah, Sandra lived a life rooted in deep faith, integrity, and kindness.
Her moral strength and compassionate concern for her fellow Georgians inspired countless others and shined in her devotion to family and friends.
Sandra served her community with dedication, lending her talents to the boards of the Georgia Association for Primary Healthcare, the Savannah Branch NAACP, and the Savannah Chapter of the American Businesswomen's Association.
Known for her love of travel, she explored 6 continents and 45 States, yet her great legacy was always close to home. She maintained a generous spirit that made the world better through simple acts of fairness, intelligence, and warmth.
Though we grieve her passing, we celebrate a life of faith, service, and love. Sandra Collins will long be remembered and deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Judge Kristi Goodwin Connell, who was appointed as the sixth Superior Court judge of the Augusta Judicial Circuit.
Judge Connell returns to the same circuit where she began her legal career.
Judge Connell earned degrees in biology and political science from Converse University. She later received a master's degree in healthcare policy and a Juris Doctor from Mercer University.
Judge Connell served as an assistant district attorney in the Columbia Judicial Circuit, prosecuting felony and misdemeanor cases. She was also a partner at the Connell Law Firm, where she handled civil, domestic, and criminal defense matters.
With more than 25 years of legal expertise, Judge Connell brings profound knowledge and expertise to the bench.
We are confident she will continue to strengthen the courts of the Augusta Judicial Circuit with integrity and dedication.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Judge James Kiger for his recent appointment as superior court judge for the Douglas Judicial Circuit in Douglas County.
Judge Kiger has 34 years of legal expertise, previously serving in the Douglas County Public Defenders' Office. Prior to his service as public defender, he practiced with a general law firm in Valdosta, Georgia.
Judge Kiger graduated with honors from Valdosta State College and earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Georgia College of Law in 1991.
He and his wife, Brenda, live in Douglasville, Georgia, and have two children, Atticus and Barbara.
Once again, I would like to recognize Judge Kiger for his extraordinary service to the Georgia legal system and congratulate him on a well-deserved appointment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pamela Bettis on her appointment as judge of the State Court of Henry County. Pam was sworn in on February 3, 2026, by Governor Brian Kemp.
Judge Bettis brings over 35 years of distinguished service in criminal justice. She began as a Henry County deputy sheriff in 1990, then served as a patrol officer, undercover narcotics agent, criminal investigator, and leader at Clayton State University Police.
A Georgia State University graduate with BS and MS degrees in criminal justice, Pam earned her JD from Emory University School of Law in 2025. She advanced as assistant solicitor general, co-founded the law firm Bettis & Howard, and was appointed solicitor general by Governor Nathan Deal in 2018, earning Solicitor General of the Year in 2020.
A lifelong Georgian and 20-year Henry County resident, Judge Bettis embodies unmatched commitment to justice, accountability, and humble service.
Congratulations to Judge Pam Bettis on this well-deserved elevation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the recent speech given by our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a fellow Floridian, who spoke to the world in Munich about the path for freedom in the 21st century. He spoke with clarity, strength, and even at times humor to paint a vision that we can all embrace.
Our transatlantic alliance faces both strain and opportunity. The United States and Europe are not merely strategic partners. As Secretary Rubio said so well, we are bound by history, culture, sacrifice, and a shared belief in liberty. Ours is not a temporary arrangement of convenience but a partnership of a shared civilization that has shaped the modern world.
History teaches us something important. Alliances endure not through sentiment but through seriousness. They thrive when nations are confident, self-reliant, and clear-eyed about the future challenges before them.
Today, I want to speak about the renewal of the West and how that renewal reflects the best traditions of American diplomacy and traditions embodied by some of our greatest Secretaries of State: John Quincy Adams, William Seward, George Marshall, and James Baker.
Each faced a fractured world, each acted boldly, and each understood that American strength, wisely applied, could shape a more stable international order.
The United States is a nation born in the European political tradition. Our constitutional order, our philosophy of rights, and our understanding of sovereignty all trace their roots back to this continent. When we say America and Europe belong together, we are not describing a temporary security arrangement. We are acknowledging a shared inheritance.
However, shared heritage does not excuse complacency. The lesson of the last several decades is clear: Alliances weaken when economic foundations erode, when clear defense burdens fall unevenly, and when world leaders avoid hard conversations. A renewal of our alliance requires candid, honest conversations.
In what form will those conversations take?
Secretary Rubio started that conversation in Munich. As a history teacher myself, I trust we will look to actions taken by some of our finest Secretaries of State when they served both their President and our Nation.
John Quincy Adams: After the War of 1812, John Quincy Adams recognized that America was fragile. The great powers of Europe were reorganizing themselves at the Congress of Vienna. It would have been easy for the young
However, John Quincy Adams, a former Massachusetts Senator and diplomat, who helped negotiate the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812, understood something profound: American strength depended first on national independence and economic resilience, and, as George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, away from entangling alliances.
As Secretary of State of our fifth President, James Monroe, Adams negotiated the Adams-Onis Treaty, securing Florida, my home State, from Spain and clarifying the American borders along the Atlantic Ocean. Later in 1823, he crafted what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, a declaration that the Western Hemisphere would not be subject to European recolonization.
The lesson was that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but neither should it allow others to define our destiny.
That balance, strength without recklessness, independence without isolation, is deeply relevant today.
When we insist on fair trade, secure supply chains, and reciprocal defense commitments, we are not retreating from the world. We are doing what Adams did: ensuring that American sovereignty underwrites American diplomacy.
William Seward, a former Governor and United States Senator from the State of New York, was appointed Secretary of State by his own political rival, President Abraham Lincoln. There Seward guided the United States foreign policy during the Civil War and adroitly kept Great Britain out of our tragic conflict.
After the war in 1867, Seward approved the purchase of Alaska. While his critics in the press mocked this as Seward's Folly, those critics would soon be proven wrong.
Today, we know that acquisition was strategic brilliance. Seward saw beyond immediate criticism. He understood geography, trade routes, and long-term power competition. He expanded America's footprint in ways that would matter for generations to come. He believed deeply in commercial expansion as a tool of diplomacy.
The lesson here is that great statesmanship requires the courage to invest in long-term national power.
Today, securing critical supply chains, revitalizing domestic industry, and preventing adversaries from dominating strategic industries is not economic nationalism for its own sake. It is modern statecraft.
Seward understood that economic strength is strategic strength.
General George Marshall led our American military during World War II as the United States Army Chief of Staff. Though not in the direct field of battle and thus not as well-known as some of the famous generals and admirals of World War II, it was Marshall whose strategic leadership in concert with Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved decisive in defeating both the Japanese and the Germans in World War II.
Two years after the conclusion of the war, President Harry Truman appointed this wartime leader as Secretary of State, our chief diplomat. As Europe lay in ruins, the United States could have turned inward. Instead, Marshall proposed the European Recovery Program, what we know today as the Marshall Plan.
The genius of Marshall was not charity. It was clarity. He recognized that American prosperity required European stability. He understood that free societies require functioning economies, and he insisted that the European nations take responsibility for designing their own recovery.
The Marshall Plan was not a blank check. It was a partnership. Marshall demanded coordination, reform, and seriousness from Europe. In return, the United States invested heavily. Due to these actions, nations on the brink, like Greece, my home country, stayed free, and NATO proved to be the alliance that blocked the evil of communism.
The lesson? Strength begets strength. When we call today for greater European defense spending, for fairer trade balances, and to bring industry home, we are echoing Marshall's insistence that a partnership must be reciprocated.
Secretary of State James Baker. In the final years of the Cold War, James Baker navigated one of the most delicate diplomatic transformations in modern history. After serving as chief of staff and later Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, Baker served as Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush.
During this time when the Berlin Wall fell, Germany reunified, and the Soviet Union collapsed, these circumstances, these changes could have triggered chaos. Instead, through disciplined diplomacy, Baker helped manage NATO expansion, reassured allies, and negotiated arms control arrangements that prevented instability.
Baker's approach was pragmatic, not ideological. He listened. He negotiated firmly. He protected American interests while recognizing the dignity of other nations.
The lesson here? Diplomacy must adapt to new realities.
The institutions built after World War II were vital, but institutions cannot become frozen monuments. They must evolve to address new forms of economic competition, technological disruption, and geopolitical rivalries.
Reform is not rejection, it is preservation through adaptation.
Today, in conclusion, we confront the issues highlighted by our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio: economic fragmentation, technological competition, supply chain vulnerability, military imbalances, and political polarization.
The temptation too often is denial or even an overreaction, but the better path, the Adams path, the Seward path, the Marshall path, the Baker path, and hopefully the Rubio path that we can follow is disciplined renewal.
That means restoring industrial capacity, ensuring defense reciprocity, reforming global institutions rather than abandoning them, and maintaining alliance unity grounded in sovereignty.
When we call on Europe to invest more in its own defense, we are not weakening NATO, we are strengthening NATO.
When we insist on true fair trade that does not hollow out our middle class, we are strengthening democratic legitimacy.
When we call for reform in global institutions, we are ensuring that they reflect the realities of 2026, not 1945.
Each of these Secretaries of State that I have highlighted understood something enduring: America must be strong at home to be credible abroad. Adams secured borders, Seward expanded territory, Marshall built alliances, and Baker managed transition.
None confused cooperation with dependency. None confused sovereignty with isolation. The United States remained committed to Europe, but commitment does not mean complacency. It means candid conversations about defense spending. It means honest assessments about economic policy. It means joint responsibility for the future of Western civilization.
We stand at the threshold of what can be the new century of Western strength if we choose seriousness, not political correctness. The West succeeded in the 20th century because it combined economic dynamism, military preparedness, cultural confidence, and institutional flexibility. Those traits must define us again. The path forward is not nostalgia, it is renewal.
When future historians look back at this moment, they will ask: Did we retreat from our responsibilities? Did we allow economic complacency to erode democratic stability? Did we allow alliances to drift into imbalance or did we act with the clarity of John Quincy Adams, with the foresight of William Seward, with the strategic generosity of George Marshall, and with the disciplined diplomacy of James Baker?
The answer depends on whether we remember the core principle that unites them all: American diplomacy works best when it combines strength, reciprocity, and long-term vision.
The United States and Europe belong together, but belonging together requires effort from both sides. Let us rebuild industrial strength. Let us renew defense commitments. Let us reform institutions, and let us move forward together. Let us do so with the vigor worthy of the statesmen who came before us and now the vision offered by our United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and our President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 5, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
