House Rejects War Powers Resolution to Withdraw Forces from Iran (203-218), Passes Year-Round E15 Fuel Act (218-203), and Adopts Resolution Supporting Law Enforcement (243-173)

The case for

Proponents, including Mr. Meeks, Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Clark, and Mr. Menefee, argued that the conflict with Iran is an unauthorized 'war of choice' that has lasted over 74 days without proper congressional briefing or Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), violating the War Powers Act and the Constitution. They asserted the war is costly, unpopular with Americans, has depleted U.S. military capabilities, and has led to increased gas prices and economic strain. They emphasized Congress's constitutional responsibility for war declarations and the need for the President to provide clear objectives and a strategy. Mr. Gottheimer stated, 'The Iranian regime must be crushed' but insisted Congress needs to be briefed to fulfill its oversight role.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Mast and Mr. Crawford, argued that the resolution was political gamesmanship that would undercut ongoing negotiations and support the Iranian regime. They asserted that Iran is an 'imminent threat' and a leading state sponsor of terrorism, citing numerous historical attacks on U.S. and allied vessels and personnel. They contended that the U.S. is not currently engaged in military operations in Iran, but rather in a cease-fire and negotiations, and that the President's actions are consistent with past practices. Mr. Mast stated that the resolution's own text outlines Iran as an imminent threat and that withdrawing forces would be irresponsible and dangerous, especially given Iran's continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

The case for

Proponents, including Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Mann, Mr. Baird, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Ms. Craig, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Flood, Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Messmer, argued that year-round E15 would lower gas prices for consumers (by 20-40 cents per gallon), strengthen American energy independence by relying on homegrown biofuels, and support rural economies and farmers by increasing corn demand. They emphasized that the bill removes outdated regulations, provides market certainty, and is a voluntary option for retailers and consumers. They stated that E15 is compatible with 96 percent of vehicles and burns cleaner.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Perry, Mr. Evans of Colorado, and Mr. Roy, argued that the bill would harm refiners, particularly small refineries, by changing definitions and increasing compliance costs by billions of dollars annually, potentially leading to closures and job losses. They contended that it would increase gas prices for consumers, not lower them, and that E15 is not genuinely competitive without mandates and subsidies. Mr. Perry stated that 22 States already have year-round E15 and that less than 14 percent of fueling stations in Iowa sell it, indicating low consumer demand.

The case for

Proponents, including Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Grothman, and Mr. Schmidt, emphasized the courage, sacrifice, and dedication of law enforcement officers, particularly during National Police Week. They highlighted officers' roles in safeguarding communities, combating crime, removing drugs, and providing community outreach. They criticized 'leftist activists and progressive politicians' for promoting 'defund the police' rhetoric and sanctuary city policies, which they argued undermine public safety. They attributed recent declines in homicide rates and drug overdose deaths to the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order, citing specific crime reductions in major cities.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Raskin and Mrs. McBath, strongly opposed the resolution as a 'partisan polemic' that politicized National Police Week. They argued that the resolution spread misinformation, particularly regarding the attribution of crime reduction to the Trump administration, noting that homicides skyrocketed during the first Trump administration and declines began under the Biden administration due to Democratic-led investments. They criticized the Trump administration for cutting funding for public safety programs (e.g., COPS, Office on Violence Against Women) and diverting law enforcement officers to immigration enforcement. They also condemned President Trump's pardons of January 6 rioters who attacked police officers, arguing this undermined support for law enforcement.