First of all, I think you were listening, um, when your Democratic colleagues said he wishes
they, meaning this administration, were a little more serious about all this. Do you
agree or disagree with that? And I just wanna give you a chance to react to anything else, uh,
you heard your colleagues say. Well, I wish my Democratic colleagues were more serious about
this. I mean, the fact is 53 of them voted last week, uh, not to declare Iran
the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. So I think my colleague should be a little more
focused on, frankly, the unseriousness of his own party, uh, and frankly, nothing he said was
actually of substance in that interview that I just listened to. The fact is that everybody
acknowledges, other than the 53 Democrats that voted no, that Iran is the greatest state
sponsor of terror. They have been the greatest impediment to peace and stability in the Middle
East and in the region. We see with their belligerent response to this conflict where
they are striking civilian sites in Arab states neighboring them. That
Iran is the real threat here and ultimately after months of negotiation in which
Iran refused to cede any ground with respect to its ballistic missiles program and its
financing of terrorism, President Trump made a decision that every president said that they
would, that they would ensure that Iran never got a nuclear weapon. And between last summer's
strikes and the decision to take military action here, President Trump is ensuring that
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is paramount. And all of my Democratic colleagues,
including Adam Smith, just said, oh, I hope it works out. I hope we get regime change. I hope,
I hope, I hope. Well, hope is not a strategy, and you actually have to be willing to take
action. And that is the fundamental problem and why Barack Obama's attempts at this and Joe
Biden's attempts at this have failed so miserably, because hope is not a strategy. You
actually have to be willing to take military action if you are going to impede their ability
to use a nuclear weapon. The problem here was very simple. Iran was mass
producing ballistic missiles at such a rate that if we did not intervene, if we did not
stop it, They would have been able to develop a nuclear bomb and utilize it in a short time
frame. But Congressman, I haven't seen any evidence that shows that that breakout time was
closer or more urgent this week, this month than it was last summer when the administration
went after those nuclear sites. Do you have any information that that those decimated
nuclear sites, according to this administration, were all of a sudden a bigger
threat, yeah. OK, we have, we have had classified briefs, and I'm not going to get
into the specifics of the classified briefs, but the fact is that the administration and
President Trump took decisive action last summer, striking 3 nuclear facilities. As
everybody understands, Iran has enriched uranium that they are currently storing. And
they were mass producing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate that would actually protect
their ability to develop that bomb. Had we waited, had we allowed this to continue in
perpetuity, it would have been almost impossible for us to take the necessary steps
to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, Congressman. So there is, there was a decision
that was made. And I support what the president decided in this moment to end the
threat of a nuclear Iran. And for many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, the problem
with them is they're inconsistent on everything. Adam Smith was in support of
efforts in Libya to remove Muammar Gaddafi. Adam Smith was supportive of Barack Obama's
seven month bombing of Libya. Didn't say boo about it. So the problem is many of my
Democratic colleagues care more about the fact that Donald Trump is president and it's Donald
Trump making these decisions than they do preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,
and that's the fundamental problem. Congress, you said just a moment ago that hope is not as.
Strategy. I'm gonna quote from something that the president said to NBC News yesterday, quote,
Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the UK and others that are affected by this
artificial constraint will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer
be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated. Therein it does seem like hope is
the strategy for the president as we look at the strait totally closed to traffic. Explain
how it's anyhow different. Yeah, the president is in touch with these nations. Remember, China
is the greatest purchaser of Iranian petroleum , and yet where are they? The strait remains
closed and we see energy coming to a standstill to finish. If you'd like me to
finish, let me actually speak. Thanks. So the fact is, China is the greatest purchaser of
Iranian petroleum. They're the ones that benefit most from the Strait of Hormuz being
open. So yes, it's in China's interest, it's in some of our European allies' interests for
the Strait of Hormuz to be open. Remember, we don't get oil from Iran. We have crippling
sanctions on Iranian petroleum. Iran's illicit oil trade is what has funded terrorism around
the globe, and we have been cracking down on that. Last year, last Congress, I passed. The
SHIP Act alongside Secretary Rubio when he was in the Senate to crack down on the illicit oil
trade. Obviously we want the Strait of Hormuz to be open. That is why the President has taken
aggressive action against Iran's naval fleet, obliterating it,
as well as going after their military capacity and capability on Karg Island. So we are
taking necessary measures to push back against the Iranian regime and their efforts
to block the Strait of Hormuz, but it is also incumbent on some of our allies and adversaries,
many of whom benefit from trade coming through the Strait of Hormuz, to engage, and I think
the The president is not only engaged in that conversation, but he's making the point that it
is in their best interests as well to engage on this matter. Congressman, I want to ask you
about the cost of this conflict, not just the financial costs, but also the human toll. There,
there has been a lot of loss of life, including American soldiers, and one of them, I
believe, is from your district. There's an NYPD officer who died in Kuwait supporting this
operation. Uh, what are you hearing from your constituents? Have you spoken to this family,
and are people concerned that as this goes on, even if they support the president, even if
they support the objectives, they may not be willing to commit more American lives to this
operation? Well, any time we have military engagement, the loss of
life is tragic. The loss of our men and women in our armed forces is tragic, and our heart
breaks for their families. I have spoken to his widow, and we will
certainly be doing everything in our power to support the family. There is a GoFundMe that
has already raised well over $100,000 to support this family, including. $100,000
donation by Bill Ackman, and I thank him for that in support of this family, but this is
obviously always a very difficult time. Any time you have the loss of our
soldiers, we saw the refueling airplane the other day go down and
6 soldiers lost in that. It's tragic and certainly that is something that the military
does everything in their power to guard against and prevent the loss of life, but this
is certainly a conflict. In which we are trying to stop evil, we
are trying to prevent a nuclear weapon from being used in the Middle East or around the
globe and cause mass casualty. You see how Iran has responded belligerently
striking civilian targets in neighboring Arab states. They launched hundreds of
ballistic missiles at Israel last year and the year before. The fact is this
regime needs to be defeated, and President Trump and our armed forces are making a
necessary, difficult but necessary decision to take. Out the threat. Congressman, I wanna ask
you lastly. You sit on the, the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we mentioned, but you're
on the Financial Services Committee as well, and we had this news on Friday, uh, that, uh, a
judge had struck down what the US Attorney in DC hoped to do, which is to issue, uh,
subpoenas, get, get information from Fed Chair Jerome Powell and from the Federal Reserve as
well vis a vis his chairmanship. Um, we heard from Thom Tillis, the senator from North
Carolina, who's threatened to withhold, uh, Fed nominations as a result of that
investigation. Uh, that he continues to do so in light of what's happened here. Do you, do
you think it's in our interest, in the country's interest for these investigations to
continue if it does involve holding up the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the next Fed
chair? Look, I'd like to see Kevin confirmed
expeditiously. I think it's imperative that he come in as chairman. Jerome Powell will still
be on the Fed board, but from my vantage point , I don't think this is the best use of time
and resources. I've said that previously. Should there be an investigation into
how, you know, The, the, the rebuilding of the Federal Reserve building went billions of
dollars over budget, sure, uh, and they should get to the bottom of that and have a full
understanding of that, but I don't think that at this moment requires a criminal
investigation of Chairman Powell, and I think frankly we need to move forward with a new Fed
chair.