[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 20, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3648-H3652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1330
DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5(c) OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, TO REMOVE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITH
IRAN
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of May 20,
2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) directing
the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution,
to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today,
the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 86
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the
President to remove United States Armed Forces from
hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than
those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to
defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United
States from imminent attack provided that the President
complies fully with the requirements of section 5(b) the War
Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)) with respect to any
such use of the Armed Forces, unless explicitly authorized by
a declaration of war or a specific congressional
authorization for use of military force against Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of
Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include any extraneous materials on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me what exactly my colleagues are
trying to do. We were on this merry-go-round last week, and last week
my colleagues across the aisle here voted to say let's remove all U.S.
forces from any hostilities with Iran, while at the same time they
acknowledged the imminent threat that Iran poses against us. They said
Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and Iran wants to attack
the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist
proxies, and obtain a nuclear weapon to do so, as well.
They acknowledge all of these things, but then they say let's be a
United States of America that does not respond to threats against the
United States of America. I don't understand it. I look forward to
hearing the explanation from my colleagues, although it will be
unexplainable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my War Powers
Resolution. Yes, here we go again. Today marks the fourth time this
body will vote on a resolution to end President Trump's hostilities
against Iran. After months of war, I ask the question: What has
changed?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that certainly nothing has changed for
the better. Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon. Airlines are
cutting routes and struggling under rising fuel costs. The price of
groceries, Mr. Speaker, and everyday goods continue to climb as more
families are struggling to make ends meet.
Why? It is all because the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before
the war, now sits at the center of escalating disruption and economic
uncertainty.
When the President of the United States was asked whether he was
thinking about the financial struggles of everyday American people, not
the ultrarich like him and his buddies, he doubles down on a failed
war. What was his response? ``Not even a little bit . . . I don't think
about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.''
Here is what else hasn't changed, Mr. Speaker: The same Iranian
regime remains in place. Iran retained its coercive capabilities, and
Iran's nuclear program remains where it stood after the so-called 12-
day war. Iran still possesses its highly enriched uranium and nuclear
know-how. Much of its missile and drone capability remains intact, and
Tehran retains leverage over the global economy.
Trump started this war, and he started it without congressional
authorization and without a credible endgame. He still cannot explain
how it ends, and the situation grows worse by worse every day.
Yet, my colleagues across the aisle continue to repeat the same
argument. Perhaps for me the most absurd is that Iran posed an imminent
threat. We have heard Mr. Mast, the chairman of the committee, say that
Iran has posed an imminent threat for 47 years. Mr. Speaker, 47 years
is not imminent.
The administration has not even attempted to demonstrate any imminent
threat existed, let alone one that would have justified launching this
war under the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution.
The law is very clear: If the President wishes to continue
hostilities beyond 60 days, Congress must authorize them through an
authorization for use of military force. If my Republican colleagues
believe this war is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor.
Yet, they have not. Absent congressional authorization, President
Trump, by law, is required to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities.
It is clear to the entire world that even without a deep-water Navy,
Iran is still capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz.
None of this war's shifting objectives have been achieved. If and
when Republicans try and claim, as Donald Trump sometimes does, that
somehow killing the 86-year-old Khamenei, only to replace him with a
much younger Khamenei, is proof of regime change, I would invite them
to explain that to their constituents at a townhall meeting and see how
seriously it is received by their constituents.
We have heard my Republican colleagues say that we should trust the
Commander in Chief. Mr. Speaker, no President, Democrat, or Republican,
deserves a blank check, especially one who has said Iran's nuclear
program was ``obliterated'' and then used that same threat to justify
this war.
This Commander in Chief has said the war is over, the war is won,
that it is not a war, it is a war, that it is a mini war or an
excursion. All of these things are what this President has said.
We are trapped in a war that won't end because an incompetent
President launched it thinking of only his own ego, while failing to
prepare for the consequences.
Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more
bluster, not waiting for the President to stumble into a cease-fire he
can brand as a victory. That doesn't work. Yet, my Republican
colleagues are just sitting on their hands doing everything they can to
cover for this President.
Mr. Chairman, what I would love to do on the Committee on Foreign
Affairs is to at least hold a hearing. We have not held one single
public hearing, not one witness, not 1 hour of testimony on a war that
has cost the
[[Page H3649]]
American people tens of billions of dollars.
Congress cannot abandon its constitutional responsibility over
matters of war and peace, and we should not be reducing ourselves to be
a rubber stamp.
{time} 1340
That is why we must vote ``yes'' today: for our brave men and women
in uniform who are in harm's way; for the family paying almost $5 a
gallon who can't wait another week; and for the small business owner
watching their costs spiral because this President started a war with
no plan, with no authorization, and with no end in sight.
All the polls show that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, the
American people, want this over. They are concerned about another
forever war.
Mr. Speaker, above all, and most importantly, the Constitution of the
United States of America, what we swore an oath to--not to a President,
not to anyone, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
That Constitution requires us to take action, to have a vote on this
floor, and let the American people know where we stand.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, this week, my colleague wants to make the
argument about an imminent threat. I am glad he wants to have that
debate. Last week, my colleague voted, as I outlined already, to say
literally that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and Iran
wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic
missiles, terrorist proxies, and, if obtained, a nuclear weapon.
I would ask my colleague across the aisle: You voted to say Iran was
an imminent threat. How do you define an imminent threat? You voted for
it last week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating something that is
not debatable. It is in the Constitution that every single one of us
pledges to uphold. You can read it. It says that the Congress
authorizes military action.
It doesn't matter how good or bad or evil or close to a nuclear
weapon a foe is. What matters is that the Constitution says we debate
and approve military action.
Today, of course, we are well beyond the 60 days of the start of this
hostility. Not only is this action unconstitutional, completely
unapproved by the Congress, but it is now illegal. The War Powers Act
requires that troops be withdrawn, absent the approval of Congress,
after 60 days.
The chairman says over and over and over again that the Democrats
said that it is an evil regime. Yes, we can all agree that it is an
evil regime, but the chairman knows that the world is full of evil
regimes. It doesn't, therefore, follow that you declare war and go to
war and raise Americans' gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and spit in the
face of the Constitution just because we all stipulate that the Iranian
regime is evil.
Let's take a quick tour backward here. We have had no explanation for
this war, beyond the fact that we all understand that the regime in
Iran is evil. The President himself told us that the nuclear program
was obliterated 9 months ago. Iran, as awful and as dangerous as they
were--which, again, isn't a license to go to war--was perhaps in the
weakest position it had been in a generation due to the war of 9 months
ago, so the notion of imminence is absurd. You are hearing that from
the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
Where we find ourselves now is that gasoline prices are up $1.50;
food prices are rising; the inflation print of last week was pretty
terrifying; and my friends in the majority know how utterly politically
toxic this war is. They will not do their constitutional duty because
they saw what we all saw, which is that this President decides who
amongst Republican Members of the House and the Senate get to survive.
The Senator from Louisiana crosses the President; he is gone. The
gentleman from Kentucky crosses the President; he is gone. As a
political matter, it is fascinating to me that any President has that
kind of choke hold over his party, but that is not a reason to spit in
the face of the Constitution.
Lose your job for what you pledge to uphold and defend. No career is
worth abnegating a pledge you took to the Constitution of the United
States, especially when it is creating massive economic hardship for
the people who we represent.
Do you think this is ending quickly? It is not. The Iranians are now
in the strategic position to decide when this is over because they know
the pain that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing.
The only responsible action, the only legal action, and the only
constitutional action is to debate this war and to stop it in the
meantime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I see the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee
running off. I don't think he wants to stay to answer questions.
Good, please stay.
Number one, imminence matters. My colleagues--this being one of
them--voted last week to say--let me read it again here: Iran wants to
attack the United States, our allies, with ballistic missiles, terror
proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon. That, to me, is the
definition of ``imminence.''
I see him running off. I guess he doesn't want to explain whether
that is a vote to say they are an imminent threat. I am happy to yield
him a couple of seconds.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for
the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. HIMES. The chairman can say it over and over and over again that
we agree that the Iranian regime is evil.
Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.''
Mr. HIMES. It therefore does not follow that we must attack them.
Mr. MAST. I didn't say ``evil.'' Did I say ``evil''? I agree they are
evil, but I didn't say that. Let's not twist the words.
Mr. HIMES. Simply because a regime is evil does not authorize a war
against it. The chairman knows that.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield more time because I think he is going
to run out.
I didn't say ``evil.'' You are still saying things I didn't say. I
read what you voted for last week: Iran wants to attack the United
States--``wants to attack'' means imminent--and our allies with
ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear
weapon.
Mr. HIMES. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. MAST. I will give you a moment of time in a second.
He voted to say any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. We could go on and on about these things.
Are they an imminent threat?
Mr. HIMES. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Does the gentleman believe that the Iranian regime is the
only regime on the planet that would like to attack the United States
of America?
Mr. MAST. They are certainly not.
Mr. HIMES. They are certainly not. Does the gentleman, therefore,
believe that we should take military action against all the other
regimes that would like to attack America?
Mr. MAST. What I would give you is this, to present, again, imminence
of them. I just gave you some examples. We will say just before this
began in February, they attacked a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of
Hormuz. Just before that, they attacked--IRGC, I am talking about when
I say ``they.'' They attacked another oil tanker in the Strait of
Hormuz. Just before that--I am in December now--attacked another one.
Just before that, IRGC attacked one in the Marshall Islands. Just
before that, IRGC attacked an MSC ship and raided with a helicopter in
the Strait of Hormuz. I have pages and pages of these. It is the
definition of ``imminent.''
[[Page H3650]]
As you know, before that, they killed three Americans at Tower 22 in
Jordan. It is imminent.
Mr. HIMES. Sir, the definition of ``imminent''--and you can look it
up--is that they are about to attack us. I can tell you, as the ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee who did not leave, that they were
not about to attack us. You can make up a different definition for
``imminent,'' but that does not make it correct.
Mr. MAST. They attacked us literally just before our operations
began. I gave you one example. To me, being a servicemember, if I see a
foxhole and one or two enemies in that foxhole with the barrel of a
.50-cal pointed at me, just because they don't have two fingers on the
trigger playing with that trigger doesn't mean that it is not an
imminent threat. If they are aiming it at me, that is an imminent
threat. They are aiming it at us.
Mr. HIMES. If I could point out to the chairman--and I respect his
military service--if he were, in fact, in a foxhole facing a .50-
caliber machine gun, at least for the last 100 years, he almost
certainly would have been in that position pursuant to an Authorization
for Use of Military Force by this body.
Mr. MAST. Thankfully, we have had a cease-fire since, I want to say
the date was April 7, April 8. We are not in hostilities. We are out
there with almost the exact same number of forces that we continually
keep in the region.
It brings me to another question I would love to ask you as ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee, because the bill literally calls
for the removal of U.S. forces from the region, other than those that
``may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of
the United States from imminent attack.'' That is what the bill says
you are voting on today--probably, you will vote for it. I would love
to know which military assets you would like to remove.
{time} 1350
Mr. HIMES. Well, I think what we should do is pause our military
activities while we exercise the constitutional and just the smart act
of debating a war which has now affected every single--
Mr. MAST. We are paused. We are in a cease-fire.
Mr. HIMES. Look, if this body chooses to maintain the military
action, I will respect the body.
Mr. MAST. That is what a cease-fire is. It is an end to that.
Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), an esteemed member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if the majority is so confident in its position, I don't
know why we wouldn't be debating this in a regular debate around the
authorization of use of military force.
Mr. Speaker, we have been in this illegal, unconstitutional war for
81 days. We have spent at least $29 billion of taxpayers' money. While
Trump says that we have no money for healthcare or housing, inflation
is at a 3-year high. Gas in my home State costs $6 a gallon. Travel
costs are up right now in the summer months when American families are
hoping to go on vacation.
Iran now more clearly controls the Strait of Hormuz and the flow of
oil than ever before. We are in a worse place than we were during
Barack Obama's Presidency, when we had the Iran nuclear deal in place,
until Donald Trump pulled us out of it.
The reality is that, meanwhile, we have lost 13 U.S. troops.
Thousands of Iranian and Lebanese civilians have died. Millions more
have been displaced, and there is chaos across the region and across
the world.
More Republicans need to step up and vote with us to stop this
illegal war and force this President to focus on the needs of the
American people right here at home, even though he keeps doubling down
on his own comments that he doesn't care about or doesn't think about
the financial situation of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. I don't
understand why my Republican colleagues across the aisle don't want to
hold the constitutional powers that are granted to this body in Article
I. Why not stand up for the things that the Founders put into the
Constitution to assure that there would be a debate, that there would
be checks and balances, and that there would be authorization from this
body to declare war?
Why not stand up for the people at home who are wondering when on
Earth we are going to stand up and fight for their price of groceries
to go down and the price of gas to go down? The fact that Americans
have had healthcare stripped away from them, this is a clear ``yes'' on
this War Powers Resolution.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. FINE. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate incredibly disappointing
because it is an intellectually bankrupt one.
For 4 years under Joe Biden--I looked it up--he engaged in 500 unique
airstrikes. He engaged in some level of operation in 78 countries.
If there was a consistent view that Congress ought to weigh in every
single time that force is used, then the argument--that I would still
disagree with, but it would at least be an intellectually honest one--
it is not. In this case, it is even worse because I believe that, in
proffering these resolutions, the other side extends the war that they
say that they want to end.
Mr. Speaker, we may debate in this Chamber, but folks around the
world watch what we say, and it is my view that the Iranians would have
already surrendered and given up what it is that we want--the ability
to create a nuclear weapon and fire it at the United States--if what
was being done in this room did not give them hope that we would not
have the confidence and the fortitude to see it out.
Every one of these debates and every one of these votes gives them
hope that maybe America will choose to stand with them--them, who, for
47 years, have killed Americans all over the world. There have been
imminent threats constantly for 47 years. From the hostages who were
kept in Iran to the American soldiers who were killed in Iraq, to those
Americans who lived in Israel who were targeted by their missiles, to
the military members who they have attacked repeatedly over 47 years,
it has been one constant imminent attack.
We should vote this down today, and we should stop doing this so that
we can say to the Iranian people and the Iranian regime, in clear and
unambiguous terms: No Member of this body is okay with you having a
nuclear weapon and one that you could use to attack the United States,
and until the President gets that job done, we are all going to stand
with him.
These resolutions extend the conflict. They do not hasten it, and
that is why we need to vote this down and stop doing this.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crow), a great former member of the United States
military.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the millions of
working-class Americans who have had it and are fed up with an endless
cycle of unaccountable conflict in the Middle East.
I started my service to this Nation in uniform, like the chairman. I
honor his service, like all of our brothers and sisters. I am proud of
that service, as should all of my brothers and sisters who took the
oath I took, stood up when our country called, and did our duty
honorably.
What is abundantly clear is that our system is broken. Working-class
Americans, like the kids who I grew up with, deployed with, fought
with, and suffered with, are the ones who have to do the fighting, the
dying, and the paying for of these conflicts. They see that the burden
of these wars falls on them, while the elites, the rich, and the
powerful in this country get richer, more powerful, and more
comfortable. The burden is not equal in this Nation. It is because the
system is broken.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that this isn't about process to me.
Yes, there are important constitutional checks and safeguards at play,
but this isn't about inside baseball, notification, and process. The
Americans' eyes glaze over when people talk about that under this dome.
What it is about to me is accountability.
When I did my combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, combat mission
after
[[Page H3651]]
combat mission after combat mission, what I had to know is that
important questions were being asked and people were being held to
account and asking tough questions, so that I could focus on my mission
in bringing my men home.
That has stopped. The debate isn't happening. We are paying for these
wars with debt, $5 trillion to $8 trillion, 7,000 American lives, and
on and on it goes.
It is not just our right. It is our duty. It is our job under this
dome to take votes, to appropriate money, to ask tough questions, to
hold people to account, and then go home and stand in front of high
school gymnasiums, stand in front of our constituents, go to Rotary
Clubs, and explain those votes, why we should send our sons and our
daughters and our money to the Middle East again and again and again.
That is what our system requires. That is what Americans deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, this is not optional. The Framers dedicated
this responsibility to us because they knew that the decision to send
our sons and daughters into war and to spend taxpayers' money was our
most solemn responsibility, and no one person should make that
decision.
The system is broken. It is our duty to take it back. That is what
this vote is for.
Maybe we should go to war in one instance, but the debate must
happen. The vote must happen.
I encourage--I demand that my colleagues step up and take this vote
and retake our constitutional duty and to get this done. It is what our
servicemen and -women deserve.
{time} 1400
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is still an argument from my colleagues over there
about imminent threat, imminent threat, whether it is an imminent
threat. I will just give them one other important piece of information
they might want for the debate that was just so passionately spoken
about.
Before Epic Fury began, 30 months--the 30 months within, not 30
months just beyond that--30 months within Epic Fury, that time before
it, there were 350 attacks against the United States of America. That
is not just imminent. That is continuous.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask how my colleagues on the other side to not
equate continuous with imminence. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line: President Trump started a war.
Congress never authorized it. I don't think anybody can dispute that.
He started a war. Congress never authorized it. Sixty days have gone
by. He still has not come back to Congress. That is the basic
responsibilities that we have.
Other than that, we should make a motion, and I would join, love to
have a debate on the floor on an AUMF. Again, that is our
constitutional authority. Again, the President has to come to us.
Why don't we do our constitutional responsibilities? Why do we want
to give it away?
Well, actually, we are not even giving it away. We are not doing what
the law says for us to do, what the Constitution says for us to do,
what we took and swore an oath of office to do.
The President did this. If he had a clear objective, he didn't bring
it to Congress. If he had a credible endgame, he didn't bring it to
Congress. However, most importantly, he didn't bring it to the American
people, either.
The way our system works, we are supposed to be representatives of
the people. If you are going to bring it to the people, you have to
bring it through this House or he should be making some public
statements of that nature. He has yet to give us a clear objective, he
has yet to give us a credible endgame, and he has yet to give us an
honest accounting to how much this is costing the American people in
dollars and cents.
We can see it with our own eyes. I mean, I know I do. I know that
when I go back home and talk to my constituents, they make sure to
bring it up. One would show me the gas station, and then he shows me
the price of gas. He knows that the price of gas was not that prior to
this war of choice.
If you go to a grocery store to buy food, you see the increase in
cost. Those who were planning vacations for the summer now can't afford
to fly or drive. Why? It is because of the rising costs. The danger is
spreading. The President has, in fact, made America less safe, not
more.
My colleague keeps talking about imminent.
Here is what the President of the United States said: All three
nuclear sites in Iran have been completely destroyed or obliterated. He
said it would take years to bring them back into service, and if Iran
wanted to, they would be better off starting anew in three different
locations prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to
do so.
Does that sound like the President feels that there is an imminent
threat right now from Iran's nuclear facilities?
He says the only thing he is concerned about--I have not heard the
President say anything about an imminent threat to the United States.
He talked about that he obliterated their nuclear weapons.
Therefore, it just seems to me that the bottom line here is that
Congress has a constitutional duty. It has a duty to act, not to
cheerlead, especially not to cheerlead an open-ended war of choice, not
to outsource our judgment to one man's ego. We have a responsibility.
In the Constitution, we are a separate but equal branch of
government. We are supposed to be a check and balance and oversight of
the executive branch of government, not just do whatever the President
says, not questioning, not having hearings, not going back and forth.
Unfortunately, that is what is happening here.
We had a vote last week, and it was 212-212. We are giving--and I
think my Republican colleagues deserve to have--another opportunity to
speak to their constituents, to let them know where they stand, whether
or not they care about their financial situation, whether or not they
care about anybody, about the American people. If we are going to do
this, to give them this opportunity to speak to their constituents, we
know what we see and hear when we go back home.
We see this conversation is taking place not in blue States only, not
only in purple States, but in red States because the truth of the
matter and the bottom line, this is an American issue. It is about its
institution called the United States House of Representatives and
whether or not we are truly that branch of government that will
exercise its constitutional responsibility and be a check and a balance
on a President. Not whether or not, as the ranking member of the Intel
Committee said, not whether we are just afraid of how to vote, as
happens in other areas, in other countries. Many people are afraid to
vote differently in Russia--so they do whatever Vladimir Putin says--
and North Korea and Iran. They are afraid. That should not be us. We
should stand for the oath of office that we have taken and make sure
that the American people that we represent get to hear from Congress.
Let's vote. Let's go on record. Let's make sure that we are doing our
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1410
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have probably, I don't know, maybe 100 people
up in the gallery behind us. I am going to apologize to the people
behind us. They came here to the Capitol of the United States of
America to hear debate, but they witnessed my colleagues over here
don't really want to debate.
I am always willing to give them time if they actually want to have a
debate, argue facts, talk about things, but they rarely--as you all
witnessed, they don't want to take my time to answer questions.
The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had a little back
and forth with me for a little while. I appreciated it. I asked him
very direct questions. Does continuous attacks
[[Page H3652]]
against the United States of America equal an imminent threat. They
just gloss by that as though they have nothing to do with the national
security of the United States of America. They didn't want to talk
about it.
You are owed more than that. This is what debate is. I constantly
offer them the time. They don't want to answer the questions. It is
because this is all political for them. This is political. That is why
they don't want to answer why they voted not too long ago to say use
any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon. They all over there voted for that.
None of them can explain today why they don't want to use any and all
means necessary, but before, that was the case. It is not convenient.
It is not politically convenient for them to do that.
My colleagues over here said it is a war of choice. Yes, it is a
choice. As Americans, we make a choice. If somebody hits us day after
day, week after week, month after month, do we just keep getting hit,
or do we hit back? That is a choice.
I can tell you, as an American servicemember, an American fighter, if
somebody hits me, kills my people, I am going to hit them back.
Yes, I hate high energy prices, but not as much as I hate people who
kill Americans. I hate them, but not as much as I hate those that kill
my people.
Iran kills our people consistently, attacks our people consistently,
and wants to seek the means to do that with a nuclear weapon. They all
agreed on it prior to President Trump doing something about it. They
don't want to have a debate about that.
No matter how it comes down in the end, they don't want to actually
talk about the real things that are going on. They don't want to talk
about the troop levels over there that are basically the same thing
that they were before this conflict even began. These are things they
don't like to discuss.
Again, you weren't all here in the audience a week ago when we were
debating this before, but as I mentioned earlier, they all voted to say
the ways that Iran is a nuclear threat: They want to attack the United
States of America. They want to attack us with ballistic missiles, with
terrorist proxies. They want to obtain a nuclear weapon and use that
against us.
They all voted to say that a week ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I will keep that in mind.
They all voted to say that, that this is the way that Iran is a
nuclear--that they are an imminent threat. They won't use the words
``imminent threat,'' though, because to use the words ``imminent
threat'' has some specific legal connotation to it. They know it is bad
for them. They don't want to do it. It is political, too political.
It would be like I have a cough, a fever, cold sweats, but I am
unwilling to say that I have the flu. They are not willing to say it.
They are not willing to acknowledge what is.
People in the audience, people watching, you are owed more than that
out of those who are debating national security.
I mentioned already that before Operation Epic Fury began, in the 30
months prior to it beginning: 350 attacks in 30 months. They are not
willing to say that that is ``imminent.''
Examples include U.S.-flagged tankers, and Iranian forces seize
Greek-flagged tanker. There was the tanker Pacific Zircon, off the
coast of Oman. Iranian Navy captures Marshall Islands-flagged tanker,
Advantage Sweet. Iranian IRGC seizes Panamanian tanker. IRGC seize
Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. The list goes on and on, week in and
week out. There was an American tanker, a tanker from another country,
putting U.S. sailors on their knees on a U.S. vessel, if everybody
remembers that.
I am an American. I don't believe in getting hit and walking away and
pretending as though it didn't happen. I would like to think that all
Americans were the same way, but I know that is not the case. There are
very few that serve in the United States military, and probably even
less that are capable of it, because not everybody reacts to conflict
in the same way or has the same desire to deal with it.
My colleagues over here who are voting for this are the kind of
Americans that get hit and pretend as though it never happened.
If you want America to get hit and pretend as though it never
happened, then vote with my colleagues over there. If you want us to
keep doing something about it, protecting our servicemembers in the
region and our assets in the region, then vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous question is
ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________