Floor SpeechBipartisan2026-04-30

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

EnvironmentForeign PolicyDefenseTradeLabor

Context

On 2026-04-30, Senator Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) delivered a floor speech titled "DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT" in the Senate. The speech addressed the environment and also covered foreign policy, defense. It referenced legislation including S2156, S2158, S2157, among other bills.

Full Text

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2156-S2158] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Mr. SCHIFF. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C 1546(a) and section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 184. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S.J. Res. 184, a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. Mr. SCHIFF. For the last 8 weeks, I have taken to the Senate floor to oppose the Iran war. I have pointed out the lack of an imminent threat from Iran and the shifting justifications for the war. I have enumerated the many costs of the war in blood and in treasure, in higher gas prices and costs of groceries. And I have lamented the loss of 13 servicemembers including a Californian and the injury of scores of others. Today, I rise to sound the alarm about another risk of this war and that is that the administration is poised to violate the War Powers Act and that if we permit such a flagrant violation of the law, we, the Senate, and the Congress, will have surrendered the war power completely to the Executive. This would be enormously dangerous and wrongheaded. I believe it is also in direct contravention of the Constitution and our duty to uphold it. At midnight tonight, it will be the 60th day since Donald Trump notified Congress under the War Powers Act that we were at war with Iran--60 days. It is also a moment that some of my Republican colleagues have pointed to as a turning point in their consideration of the legal and constitutional bases for the Iran war. That is because under the War Powers Act of 1973, a President is legally mandated to remove military forces from a conflict if Congress has not voted to authorize it within those 60 days. As we have all acknowledged, the President can order military action in response to an armed attack or the imminent threat of an attack if those dangers require immediate action, but that power and responsibility is not unlimited. After 60 days, he must seek an authorization from Congress to continue the war or, failing to receive it, he must order the withdrawal of our forces. Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle have argued that the President properly began this war because they believe that we faced some form of an immediate threat to our forces or our allies. But they have also affirmed that the President's authority to use military force expires after the 60 days set out in the War Powers Act. Now, I strongly disagree with the argument that we faced an attack-- or an imminent threat of attack--from Iran, justifying this war. But I respect the fact that some of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged that authority, if it exists, lapses tomorrow night. This military operation has been carried out by the Commander in Chief for the past 60 days. We have multiple carrier strike groups, tens of thousands of servicemembers, pilots and sailors and soldiers and marines, all serving halfway around the world and now for 60 days. In addition to the 13 servicemembers who have lost their lives, more than 200 others have been seriously--or have been injured, and some seriously. The letter of the law is clear. This is what the act says ``Within sixty calendar days after a report''--and that is a report on the beginning of hostilities like the one we received from the President on March 2--``Within sixty calendar days . . . the President shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted . . .'' ``Shall terminate.'' That is ``Unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of [the] United States Armed Forces.'' Now this is important. The law does not turn on the introduction of an authorization to use force or committee consideration of such an authorization or even a Senate floor vote on an authorization. No, the law requires the enactment of a war authorization. Failing that, the law requires the President to remove U.S. forces. This is the case unless the Congress changes the War Powers Act itself, which we have not done, or cannot meet as a result of an attack, which is demonstrably not the case because, well, we are all here. Those are the only two carve-outs. There are no other exceptions. If the President is still using the military for the same purpose as he was 60 days earlier and there has been no authorization of military force enacted--or war [[Page S2157]] declaration--the President must terminate this use of force until Congress says otherwise. Now, some might argue that because we are not currently bombing Iran--because there is a tentative cease-fire in place--that somehow the War Powers Act no longer applies, that somehow the war powers clock stops ticking. But this is simply not true. The United States Navy is still being used to interdict Iranian ships or ships embarking from Iranian ports. We are still using our Navy to blockade Iran. Our servicemembers are still at risk. And there is no provision in the War Powers Act to suspend the clock when military force is used in one respect but not another. For the law says: The President shall terminate any use of [the] United States Armed Forces . . . There is no exception made for the Navy or the use of naval forces. Now, the law allows for a 30-day period for a safe withdrawal if the administration seeks it, but the President has not requested one. It is important to note that the purpose for an extension is explicit in the law. It exists: If the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of [the] United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. The President has made no such certification. And so I say to my colleagues: This is the moment you have pointed to and waited for. This is the moment when Congress must assert itself. This is the moment when we must recognize that the Founders gave Congress alone the power to authorize war. The moment of reflection and action that you have identified--and I respect you for doing so--is here. And we must take action. We should all bear in mind that today's vote is simply to bring a resolution to the floor to discharge my resolution S.J. Res. 184 from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that it can be debated by the Senate. That will happen well after the 60-day clock has expired. Colleagues, we must not move the goalposts again. If we do, we surrender all authority to authorize war to the President, and he already has enough power. What we have remaining is already so greatly diminished, already a poor reflection--a mere shadow--of the power granted to us by the Constitution and our Founders. The War Powers Act was a product of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement which took years to negotiate in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, another deeply unpopular war that stretched far longer than the American people wanted. Consider the words of one of the law's authors Senator Jacob Javits a Republican Senator from New York, words he spoke on the Senate floor while Senators overrode a Presidential veto of this law with a full 75 votes in the Senate and nearly 300 in the House. Senator Javits said ``No one is impairing the President's authority to carry on the foreign policy of this country. Let us not confuse this with foreign policy. Foreign policy does not mean war, and war does not mean foreign policy, unless there is a breakdown or failure of foreign policy. Congress is determined to recapture for ourselves the representatives of the people at the State level in the Senate and as the House did on the local level, the awesome power to make war. When we judge, by this measure''--he said--``that an incident would become a war, then we, and we alone, have the right to decide that it shall go on into war or that it shall stop. For the Constitution lays upon the Congress, unmistakably, the responsibility of deciding whether or not the state of our Nation should be changed from peace to war.'' Senator Javits understood the criticism that would be leveled against the act--and those who supported it--by President Nixon and his allies, but he also understood that the Constitution was clear. And he helped draft a law that upheld, reinforced, and strengthened the separation of power between a Commander of Chief and a Congress empowered to authorize his use of that command for the purpose of making war. Our war power is given clearly by the Constitution, but it is a muscle. And if we do not exercise it, it will not hold our weight. And Congress for years has allowed that muscle to atrophy. Mr. President, 50 years ago Republicans and Democrats alike tried to reinvigorate our war power with an eye to restoring the authority that Congress possesses but which the Vietnam war had eroded. We must not ignore that law now. For the sake of all 13 families that have already lost someone to this senseless directionless war, for the sake of future generations who may be sent into battle without the approval of Congress or the American people, by a President grown too fond of war, this has to be the moment we stand up. This has to be the moment we say enough. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recogniz

Referenced legislation: SJRES184, SJRES184

View original source →

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2156-S2158] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge Mr. SCHIFF. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C 1546(a) and section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 184. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S.J. Res. 184, a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. Mr. SCHIFF. For the last 8 weeks, I have taken to the Senate floor to oppose the Iran war. I have pointed out the lack of an imminent threat from Iran and the shifting justifications for the war. I have enumerated the many costs of the war in blood and in treasure, in higher gas prices and costs of groceries. And I have lamented the loss of 13 servicemembers including a Californian and the injury of scores of others. Today, I rise to sound the alarm about another risk of this war and that is that the administration is poised to violate the War Powers Act and that if we permit such a flagrant violation of the law, we, the Senate, and the Congress, will have surrendered the war power completely to the Executive. This would be enormously dangerous and wrongheaded. I believe it is also in direct contravention of the Constitution and our duty to uphold it. At midnight tonight, it will be the 60th day since Donald Trump notified Congress under the War Powers Act that we were at war with Iran--60 days. It is also a moment that some of my Republican colleagues have pointed to as a turning point in their consideration of the legal and constitutional bases for the Iran war. That is because under the War Powers Act of 1973, a President is legally mandated to remove military forces from a conflict if Congress has not voted to authorize it within those 60 days. As we have all acknowledged, the President can order military action in response to an armed attack or the imminent threat of an attack if those dangers require immediate action, but that power and responsibility is not unlimited. After 60 days, he must seek an authorization from Congress to continue the war or, failing to receive it, he must order the withdrawal of our forces. Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle have argued that the President properly began this war because they believe that we faced some form of an immediate threat to our forces or our allies. But they have also affirmed that the President's authority to use military force expires after the 60 days set out in the War Powers Act. Now, I strongly disagree with the argument that we faced an attack-- or an imminent threat of attack--from Iran, justifying this war. But I respect the fact that some of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged that authority, if it exists, lapses tomorrow night. This military operation has been carried out by the Commander in Chief for the past 60 days. We have multiple carrier strike groups, tens of thousands of servicemembers, pilots and sailors and soldiers and marines, all serving halfway around the world and now for 60 days. In addition to the 13 servicemembers who have lost their lives, more than 200 others have been seriously--or have been injured, and some seriously. The letter of the law is clear. This is what the act says ``Within sixty calendar days after a report''--and that is a report on the beginning of hostilities like the one we received from the President on March 2--``Within sixty calendar days . . . the President shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted . . .'' ``Shall terminate.'' That is ``Unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of [the] United States Armed Forces.'' Now this is important. The law does not turn on the introduction of an authorization to use force or committee consideration of such an authorization or even a Senate floor vote on an authorization. No, the law requires the enactment of a war authorization. Failing that, the law requires the President to remove U.S. forces. This is the case unless the Congress changes the War Powers Act itself, which we have not done, or cannot meet as a result of an attack, which is demonstrably not the case because, well, we are all here. Those are the only two carve-outs. There are no other exceptions. If the President is still using the military for the same purpose as he was 60 days earlier and there has been no authorization of military force enacted--or war [[Page S2157]] declaration--the President must terminate this use of force until Congress says otherwise. Now, some might argue that because we are not currently bombing Iran--because there is a tentative cease-fire in place--that somehow the War Powers Act no longer applies, that somehow the war powers clock stops ticking. But this is simply not true. The United States Navy is still being used to interdict Iranian ships or ships embarking from Iranian ports. We are still using our Navy to blockade Iran. Our servicemembers are still at risk. And there is no provision in the War Powers Act to suspend the clock when military force is used in one respect but not another. For the law says: The President shall terminate any use of [the] United States Armed Forces . . . There is no exception made for the Navy or the use of naval forces. Now, the law allows for a 30-day period for a safe withdrawal if the administration seeks it, but the President has not requested one. It is important to note that the purpose for an extension is explicit in the law. It exists: If the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of [the] United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. The President has made no such certification. And so I say to my colleagues: This is the moment you have pointed to and waited for. This is the moment when Congress must assert itself. This is the moment when we must recognize that the Founders gave Congress alone the power to authorize war. The moment of reflection and action that you have identified--and I respect you for doing so--is here. And we must take action. We should all bear in mind that today's vote is simply to bring a resolution to the floor to discharge my resolution S.J. Res. 184 from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that it can be debated by the Senate. That will happen well after the 60-day clock has expired. Colleagues, we must not move the goalposts again. If we do, we surrender all authority to authorize war to the President, and he already has enough power. What we have remaining is already so greatly diminished, already a poor reflection--a mere shadow--of the power granted to us by the Constitution and our Founders. The War Powers Act was a product of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement which took years to negotiate in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, another deeply unpopular war that stretched far longer than the American people wanted. Consider the words of one of the law's authors Senator Jacob Javits a Republican Senator from New York, words he spoke on the Senate floor while Senators overrode a Presidential veto of this law with a full 75 votes in the Senate and nearly 300 in the House. Senator Javits said ``No one is impairing the President's authority to carry on the foreign policy of this country. Let us not confuse this with foreign policy. Foreign policy does not mean war, and war does not mean foreign policy, unless there is a breakdown or failure of foreign policy. Congress is determined to recapture for ourselves the representatives of the people at the State level in the Senate and as the House did on the local level, the awesome power to make war. When we judge, by this measure''--he said--``that an incident would become a war, then we, and we alone, have the right to decide that it shall go on into war or that it shall stop. For the Constitution lays upon the Congress, unmistakably, the responsibility of deciding whether or not the state of our Nation should be changed from peace to war.'' Senator Javits understood the criticism that would be leveled against the act--and those who supported it--by President Nixon and his allies, but he also understood that the Constitution was clear. And he helped draft a law that upheld, reinforced, and strengthened the separation of power between a Commander of Chief and a Congress empowered to authorize his use of that command for the purpose of making war. Our war power is given clearly by the Constitution, but it is a muscle. And if we do not exercise it, it will not hold our weight. And Congress for years has allowed that muscle to atrophy. Mr. President, 50 years ago Republicans and Democrats alike tried to reinvigorate our war power with an eye to restoring the authority that Congress possesses but which the Vietnam war had eroded. We must not ignore that law now. For the sake of all 13 families that have already lost someone to this senseless directionless war, for the sake of future generations who may be sent into battle without the approval of Congress or the American people, by a President grown too fond of war, this has to be the moment we stand up. This has to be the moment we say enough. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recogniz Referenced legislation: SJRES184, SJRES184