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
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
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, 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 resolution passed, they would force the United States military to pack up, stop shooting down missiles, and tell every American sheltering in place and every ally fighting against this regime that America is no longer there to help.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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. SMITH of New Jersey. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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 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, 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. VAN DREW. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source