美众议员批评特朗普对伊言论鲁莽，指国会未收到白宫情报

We were talking to Marlin Stutzman a moment ago about the Republican conference meeting. Obviously, you were not in it this morning, but they were talking about midterm messaging. And Lisa McClain, the chair of the conference, called this one of the most aggressive and productive congresses since Harry Truman was president. Is she right? Oh, my. Oh my goodness. Let's recheck our history. No, we have not been productive.

Uh, we've suffered many shutdowns. We've had a speaker not bring us back to Congress for weeks on end, allowing his members to just go on vacation and try to figure out something to do to fill their time. There's conversation around whether or not we will even last here this week. Will we come back for the three weeks planned for the rest of this month? No. Uh, I regret that we are not as productive as we can be. I'm a member of Foreign Affairs and Appropriations.

So with Foreign Affairs, we certainly have an awful lot to talk about, about around the globe. Like an extraordinarily costly and illegal and reckless chaotic war and then in appropriations. Honest to God, we're going to do a CR today. I will be voting yes. Uh, most likely, unless something changes, uh, for the CR, because I want some continuity. But that's no way to run a government. So, uh, sadly, this book line has it very wrong, and you can't make that happen and have the American people believe it.

Well, you'll be voting yes for the CR unless something changes. Uh, as you said, Congressman, will you have the opportunity? Do you expect to vote on a Russia sanctions package? And would you send that signal to the Kremlin, or are you too concerned about the authority on tariffs that it grants to the president? My number on the CR, uh, I believe we will see that on the floor today. Uh, on the Russia sanctions bill. I don't that the best information I have is that that is not coming up this week.

And here's where I am on that. Ukraine needs our support. I have said since day one, February. Uh, four and a half years ago now. Uh, and that's only the invasion. Uh, that's not even considering. Uh, 12 years ago. Crimea. I have said since day one that we should be doing everything in our power to make sure Ukraine has what it needs to win. We have failed to do that. We originally, initially in a very strong bipartisan way, supported Ukraine in this assault on its sovereignty and its young democracy.

Uh, but then you saw us stall and become partisan. Uh, with Republicans separating from wanting to support Ukraine. It's been more than two years now since we've done something to support Ukraine. You can see I'm wearing my pin here. I have a terrific, uh, Ukrainian-American constituency in my fourth congressional district of Montgomery in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Uh, so I'm on their side. I'm on the side of Ukraine.

Sadly, I don't think we'll do something, uh, to support Ukraine this week. I don't think that resolution is coming forward. But regardless of the vehicle, we should be supporting Ukraine. I was critical of the last administration and urged President Biden and his team to get more support to Ukraine. Uh, and I am trying to do the same with this administration. So just to be clear, Congresswoman, if and when it does come to the floor, you intend to vote for the sanctions package.

It will depend upon how it reads. I have not made a call on that vote. Um, okay. You mentioned to the president you can imagine I'm not keen on that because he's already taken illegal authorities. Uh, we have the constitutional authority, the power of the purse under article one. Uh, not to mention no real war. So, uh, I'll be looking at the language of the resolution very closely as I profess and believe in my support for Ukraine.

Well, sounds like you could be a no, then, congresswoman, because he would be granted, uh, remarkable power over applying tariffs on other nations. And I realize you need to see the document and we'll talk about that. We'd like to when that arrives. Uh, six months of war with Iran. That was Friday. And as of noon today, Centcom is confirming that we have resume strikes. Were hitting targets around the strait. As the three of us speak right now, Congresswoman.

Uh, with your committee in mind here, are you hearing from the white House about leaning into military action or favoring this so-called economic day that the Treasury secretary was talking about? Because it appears we're we're pursuing both today. Well, Joe and Kelly, uh, I think it's incredibly sad that we are now past six months of this war with no resolution in sight, with no clear mission in sight. And I say that up against a visit I made this summer, uh, to Hawaii, to the RimPac exercises.

I can't tell you how impressed I am, uh, with everybody from Admiral Papa on down our Navy and Marine. The exquisite nature of their preparation, uh, for us, for national security and for war. But you put that up against a president who recklessly got us into a war, believing probably that it would have been in and out quickly, like Maduro in Venezuela. And of course, now he's in a terrible spot. We are in a dangerous spot.

Our allies. I've met through foreign affairs. I've met with our allies in the region. Uh, they are gravely concerned as their countries are suffering damage and casualties. Uh, so what I wish is that diplomacy would prevail here, that smart diplomats would come to the fore. You asked about what Congress is hearing from the white House. Nothing. Very little. We had one phone call, uh, with Secretary Rubio and Mr. Woodcock on the memorandum of understanding.

And when I asked a tough question, I got cut off. We've had no information from this white House. They have been very reckless. And obviously, Pete Hegseth is over his head. You saw the resignation. Was it today or yesterday of the head of the army? How unfortunate that we are losing these incredibly smart, talented, experienced military leaders because of a failed administration and a civilian leadership? Uh, that prize is politics over the lives of American soldiers.

We have 18 soldiers dead, 700 plus wounded. $100 billion. You want to talk about the economy? More than $100 billion spent on this war and everything costing us more because the street is closed. That wasn't a problem. Uh, seven months ago. The street is closed. Everything now costs more. And we've lost so very, very much. Well, and, Congresswoman, the president is warning on true social as we speak that more could be coming.

He says that the United States is striking Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz. He describes those strikes as large and powerful, and says they're in retaliation for Iran's attempt to lay mines and also attempted attack against U.S. forces in Jordan. He goes on to say, if the failed nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level. But it will not be the biggest attack of them all that is waiting in the wings, and when it is over, there will be very little left of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Do you expect, Congresswoman, that we may get to that point? The biggest attack of them all is that the direction this is heading. I pray not. The president has said these kinds of things over and over again. He is so extremely reckless and not well thought out. You've seen over the weekend some of his posts that make this war look like some sort of a silly video game. The president is proving himself to be farcical and feeble, and I wish stronger minds would prevail.

I wish military leadership would convince these folks as to how to get out of this as safely as possible. Leaning on and bringing together our allies in the region in the Gulf region, including Jordan. Uh, after all, we are all in this together. The president's rhetoric has been reckless, but that has been the case for the last 11.5 years that he's been on the scene running for president or serving as president. So I regret