Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces From Hostilities with Iran

Floor Speech

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 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.

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Jayapal), an esteemed member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source