Connected Vehicle National Security Review Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying something simple that shouldn't be controversial in the people's House. On questions of war and peace, on questions of life and death, Congress is not supposed to be a potted plant. We don't get paid to outsource hard decisions. We don't get brownie points for showing up.

Our Founders weren't naive about threats, but they were realistic about power. That is why they chose to entrust Congress with the power to make war--not the President, not the courts, not the States--but the elected Representatives of the people.

Call me crazy, but I think if we abdicate that power, we are not only doing a disservice to the people we represent but we are violating our sacred oath of office, our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The last time I brought up this resolution, I was told it was premature because there had been no strikes in Venezuela. Let me quote what my Republicans friends said in their own words.

Chairman Mast said: `` . . . this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela.''

Congressman Keith Self said: `` . . . which is not necessary, as it removes our Armed Forces from hostilities against a country where there have been no hostilities.''

Congressman Warren Davidson said: `` . . . is the contention that this is a present condition, that there are U.S. Forces in violation of the War Powers Resolution, or is it a hypothetical future?''

Congressman Tom McClintock said: ``If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela . . . without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.''

Even Susie Wiles, the President's own Chief of Staff, said that if he were to authorize some activity on land, then we would need Congress.

We got lots of smug lectures from the other side. Guess what. On January 3, 2026, not only did Donald Trump authorize land activity in Venezuela, but his administration did not come to Congress beforehand. We were not even the first group that he talked to after the attack on Venezuela.

I guess the best we can get from the current majority here is that there is never a good time for Congress to assert its war powers. It is either too soon or it is too late.

I don't think it is too late because we are still dealing with the consequences of this unauthorized and unlawful military strike. Nicolas Maduro, a brutal tyrant, was removed from power. The Trump administration replaced Maduro with his own damned vice president. Is that the big victory that my friends think we should be celebrating? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

They left in power the same illegitimate regime that rules through oppression, fraud, and violence. They left in control the same security apparatus that violates people's rights. They preserved the same corrupt cartel state.

Am I missing something here? From what I can tell, the President put our troops in harm's way without congressional consent, all so that he could replace one dictator with another dictator. Everything is the same except the face at the podium.

Now the President says he is the one running Venezuela. I don't even know what the hell that means.

He says we control the oil. What happens if the Venezuelan people don't want that? Will he send troops into Venezuela? What is the clearly defined mission here? I don't know what it is.

Look at what has happened since he claimed he is in charge. Repression has gotten worse. Security forces are interrogating people at checkpoints, confiscating phones, and detaining journalists. Again, I ask: What was this all about? We don't know what will happen next.

Whether you support Trump's actions or oppose them, shouldn't we all agree that we should have a debate on this stuff and that we should authorize an expansion of military forces if that is what is in the future? That should be a debate. We should have a vote on it. That is all we are asking here.

This is crazy. We can't be asleep at the switch. There is no oversight, no hearings, and no votes. It is just blind obedience to the executive. That is not the way this place is supposed to run.

If my colleagues respect this institution, the House of Representatives, they will vote ``yes'' to stop this madness from going any further than it already has. We ought to vote on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the distinguished chairman that his arguments are: It is either too early, or it is too late.

Our troops were on the ground. Our troops were shot at. They were wounded. Thankfully, they are home and they are safe. With this, all we are saying here is that if you are going to expand and utilize the military again, you come to Congress and ask for a vote.

That is not just our prerogative. It is our responsibility. It is in the Constitution. That is our damn job. If you don't want to do it, do something else. Yet it is our responsibility.

In terms of the gentleman's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, I will simply suggest that maybe he and his team go to the Congressional Research Service and get a briefing to understand how it works, but this is our responsibility. It is our job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps talking about the resolution, and here it is. I did talk about the resolution, and let's talk about the resolution again. I have it right here. It is two pages.

The way the resolution is written is to comply with the War Powers Act. The resolution would simply prevent further escalation. If you are watching at home, read it yourself, H. Con. Res. 68. The reason we think we need to do that is because the administration already did not get permission before escalating the first time.

By the chairman's logic, the only time we can ever have a vote is if there are physically boots on the ground. That just is logically insane. It doesn't comport with the way the War Powers Act is written. By his logic, the President should be able to launch a preemptive nuclear war without congressional authorization. That is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I have still not gotten an answer to the only question that matters today: Why did we strike Venezuela, spending taxpayer money and putting American troops in harm's way to replace Maduro with his own Vice President, someone who is an illegitimate ruler who is just as ruthless and evil as Maduro?

I don't know why we did that. What was the point? Not a single one of my colleagues can answer that question because they have no answer. They know voting for this resolution is right.

If people want to put our troops in harm's way, if they genuinely believe more military action may be necessary in the future, if that is what you believe, whether to defend oil fields or to do something else, then you shouldn't just pound the damn lectern and wave the flag. You need to come before this entire Chamber to move a bill to authorize the use of military force.

My friends should have the guts and backbone to put an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the floor. Spell out the mission. Spell out the objectives. Tell the American people how long it lasts, what it costs, why it matters, and how we get a legitimate, democratic government in Venezuela. Have the guts to vote. That is all this resolution is requiring, but don't give me this bs about how before the strikes it was premature to vote, and now it is too late.

I have seen this movie before, Mr. Speaker. It always starts with the White House telling us that it will be quick, clean, and over in a matter of days. Then, months later, years later, you get troops deployed, kids coming home in caskets, and taxpayers paying for endless quagmires that never end, and the same people here on the floor telling us that we are premature or crying wolf are suddenly nowhere to be found.

That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Wars are easy to start, but they are hard as hell to stop.

This resolution ought to pass no matter what you believe about further military involvement in Venezuela. What it says plainly is that if the President is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and a constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval.

The people we represent did not send us here to be potted plants while the White House sleepwalks us into another mess. If this administration wants to escalate, make the case to the American people. Get consent through their elected Representatives. Follow the Constitution.

Let me tell you what I think. I think this was all so that Donald Trump could get a good headline. I think it was so he could distract from the lousy economy and the fact that he is still covering up the Epstein files. I think it is about theft because the oil being taken from the people of Venezuela is being sold off and used to finance a slush fund in Qatar controlled by, you guessed it, Donald Trump.

I don't think I have ever seen such a brazen example of corruption in my life. The President of the United States put American troops in harm's way so he could steal oil from Venezuela and deposit it into his own pocket. I think it is a disgraceful thing to do.

It is time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grow a spine, obey their oath, and do their damn jobs. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution, whether you support President Trump's actions or you disagree with them.

All this says is simply that if he wants to expand military operations, he has to come to Congress. It is that simple. It is not complicated. This is about the Constitution. This is about our oath. This is about representing the people who sent us here. I mean, to do anything less is a dereliction of our duty.

I can't even believe that this is controversial, the idea that somehow we don't want to vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, whether it is in Venezuela or anywhere else.

What is wrong with my colleagues who think this is such a big leap that this is somehow not justified? Read the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of January 21, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say this twice, once for each of my colleagues over here managing, Representative Meeks and Representative McGovern: There are no troops in Venezuela.

Let me say it one more time for you all: There are no troops in Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, neither of my colleagues bothered to say anything about what their bill they are bringing forward actually does. They didn't say a word about it. Let's quote their own bill for them, since they clearly don't want to talk about it.

They want to ``remove U.S. Forces from hostilities in Venezuela.'' That is what the bill says. Anybody can go and read it, black ink, white paper. Let's get straight to the point.

The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. I know they all predicted there was going to be some forever protracted war, but we were never at war with Venezuela. There are no boots on the ground. Democrats are asking us to vote on a resolution about a situation that literally does not exist.

We do not have anybody there in Venezuela fighting. There are no tanks on the ground in Caracas. There are no snipers in the tree line. It doesn't exist. Again, we are not at war.

Maybe they are conferring about that right now. Let me confer with my colleagues a minute.

Are we at war?

I confirmed with my staff we are not at war.

Are there any troops on the ground?

I confirmed with my staff also there are no troops on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, they should confer with their staff. I see them doing that.

Their Senate Democrat colleagues tried to bring this exact same resolution to the floor of the Senate, but even the Senate was smart enough to pull it because they didn't want to be embarrassed. Let's say it again. We are not at war.

Most of the Democrats predicted that we were going to be in some forever war. Which, again, by the way, they said after the strike hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities, their nuclear infrastructure, they all said we were going to be in a forever war. We weren't.

Then they said the same thing years ago when President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani. We were going to be in this forever protracted war. Guess what. We weren't. We haven't been, not for one moment since then.

My Democratic colleagues are batting zero in predicting forever wars. Operation Absolute Resolve was a law enforcement action to bring Nicolas Maduro, an indicted narcoterrorist with a $50 million bounty, to justice. President Trump finished the job.

Thank you, President Trump, for finishing the job.

It was literally over before breakfast. I have been in war. I can tell you that an operation that is over before breakfast is not a war.

The Department of War--let me say this again--is not engaged in any hostilities within the Venezuelan territory or with the Venezuelan military. They are not in tank battles. There are no tactical operations centers there. There are no convoys. There are no U.S. mess halls over there. There are no field hospitals. There are no trenches with infantry soldiers shooting at each other. We were not even there long enough for soldiers to heat up an MRE.

That is what we eat in the field in the military, guys.

Yet, just to give you a level of peace of mind because you are curious about this, Secretary Rubio confirmed in his letter last week that no U.S. Armed Forces are in Venezuela. He also confirmed that, should there be any military operations that would put our forces into hostilities with Venezuela, that the administration will provide the appropriate notifications to Congress; he literally said this in his letter.

What is this really about, this resolution that you all refused to even say a word about in your opening statements? It is about spite. It is about the fact that you don't want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history.

Your hypocrisy is clear, as you chant and you lead your no kings protests, but when it comes to taking down a dictator, you crawl into a corner. You curl up, and you start to cry about it.

This is about your base having protests to free Maduro. This is about appeasing your far-left friends. Now, whether my colleagues want to admit it or not, the world is a safer place because President Trump had the backbone and the stones to do what nobody else would: bring Nicolas Maduro to justice.

Let me say this as affirmatively as possible: If anybody votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution that my colleagues didn't want to describe, they are stupid. Because, again, there is nobody at war and there are no forces in hostilities in Venezuela. It would be like them calling me today to take a pie out of the oven that we all ate a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will say that this will probably be the only apology that they will get out of me today: I apologize for talking about the resolution and the text of the resolution that they still refuse to talk about. They are not willing to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there it was again, a forever war. President Trump has never brought America into a forever war. Any operation he has conducted is pretty much done before breakfast, just like Venezuela.

I think my Democrat colleagues can't wrap their heads around that something can be about more than one thing at a time. It can be about Maduro and his lawlessness. It can be about drugs. It can be about the people of Venezuela. It can also be about making sure sanctioned oil doesn't flow around the globe. It can be about more than one thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, again, my Democrat colleagues are not speaking about the words of the resolution, the basic grammar. It says: Remove forces from hostilities. There are no forces in Venezuela. They can't just make up words. I know they like to do that. They like to say plural pronouns can be used on one person and things like that, but they can't just make up grammar. Write the bill right if you want to do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a laughable argument when Democrats try to say the President is enriching himself.

Just as one example, in this case you don't see him collecting a $50 million bounty for bringing in Nicolas Maduro, a bounty that the previous administration agreed with, because he is never in it for the money. He is in it for America every single time.

I would encourage them to talk to their colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and ask her if things are better or worse for Venezuelans today than they were under Maduro.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

My colleague is still not talking about the six lines of the resolution that says to remove forces from Venezuela. They are not talking about it because there are no forces in Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that President Trump has

yet to start any war in either administration. His fight every day is protect the American homeland, protect the people of the United States of America, and he has done a damn good job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The President never explained it to me. Maybe he was just trying to make room for Maduro and his wife.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me answer some of the questions that my colleagues put up.

Why did President Trump take Maduro? It was to protect the homeland of the United States of America, as he has done with action after action after action. It is the same reason that two Presidents put a warrant, a bounty, on Nicolas Maduro--not just President Trump, but also President Biden. That is why Nicolas Maduro was snatched up, because of his poisoning of the people of the United States of America.

Again, something can be true and also be true about another action and another action and another action. It was because of the bounty. It was because of the warrant. It was because of the drugs that he was bringing to the United States of America. It was because of his partnership with China, Iran, and Russia, to be their foothold in the Western Hemisphere for their nefarious activities. It was because of the illegal shipments of oil that they were moving on Russian ships to China that were coming out of Venezuela. It was because of a lot of things that this took place.

Does the President have a plan for the future? He does, 100 percent: free and fair elections, freedom for the people of Venezuela. Ask the people of Venezuela if that is what they want. Ask the people of Venezuela if they are better today than they were before

President Trump snatched up Maduro. They will tell you they are. They are more free today, and they are hoping for more and more freedom each and every day.

President Trump has brought hope to our homeland by protecting this homeland that has been ignored for so long. He has brought hope to so many others around the globe, the people of Venezuela, people across the Middle East, people across Europe, people in place after place because of his actions.

He is the peace President. He has proven it over and over again. He has never been the President of forever wars. He has yet to create one. He has only worked in limited operations that protect the homeland of the United States of America and done the best job of it in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important with this Special Order to clear the air. Americans deserve no less than to understand the truth of what just transpired in Venezuela.

Nicolas Maduro has been removed as the reigning despot, narcoterrorist, and illegitimate President of Venezuela. This fact is a momentous and great thing, pure and simple.

Notwithstanding what you might have heard from many Democrats when President Trump's successfully ordered Maduro's arrest and exfiltration, the realization on the part of the world, especially Venezuelans, that Maduro's sword of repression has come to an end resulted in praise and thanksgiving. This mission clearly showed America's full force and capability to instigate good in the world and battle the forces of evil.

Americans woke up on January 3, 2026, to news that our truly courageous and skillful intelligence community, law enforcement, and military had executed a mission that is simply unbelievable if we had not heard about the exploits soon thereafter.

What an unprecedented risk our men and women took on that day to do what no other political administration in the world had ever contemplated as remotely possible: to remove and exfiltrate for prosecution a ruthless dictator whose direct involvement in narcoterrorism has led to the death of scores of Americans and other allies' citizens.

Please don't take my word for the nature of Maduro's reign over Venezuela. My Democrat colleagues have for years been raising the alarm of Maduro's destruction through a multitude of legislative measures. Just a small subset of this Democrat-led legislation is cited in a House resolution--H. Res. 987--we have introduced today.

Examples include H.R. 328, a Democratic-sponsored bill that excoriates the Maduro regime which ``has refused to respect the overwhelming choice of

the people of Venezuela and subsequently arrested and abused thousands of innocent citizens of Venezuela, including children, for peaceful political participation.''

Mr. Speaker, consider H. Res. 1471 of the 118th Congress, another Democratic-sponsored piece of legislation that stresses ``Venezuela, where actors linked to the regime of Nicolas Maduro have engaged in a sustained and synchronized campaign of disinformation to undermine the country's 2023-2024 electoral process, invalidate the results of such elections, and attack Maria Corina Machado and other opposition leaders.''

Mr. Speaker, pointing to the threat closer to home, Democratic- sponsored H.R. 8741 of the 118th Congress defined Maduro as a person of concern who is engaged in a ``long-term pattern or serious instances of activity adverse to the national security of the United States, the security of critical infrastructure of the United States, or the safety and security of United States persons.''

Mr. Speaker, contemplate Democratic-sponsored H.R. 5670 of the 118th Congress that succinctly called for ``an end to the usurpation of Presidential authorities by Nicolas Maduro.''

Yet, despite this forgoing string of legislation sponsored by my friends on the other side of the aisle pointing to Maduro's reign of terror, sadly, President Trump's decisive actions to do something about it all seems to have caused a reversal in sentiment among Democrats. Rather than expressing unity during a time when the Western Hemisphere has been freed from a despot's clutch, instead, Democrats have called the Trump administration ``warmongers'' who are ``lying to the American people,'' or referring to the President himself as having put us in a ``fascist cul-de-sac,'' having committed ``an impeachable offense.''

Do these comments from Democrats sound supportive of the Trump administration or the fine men and women who successfully conducted one of the most daring operations in American history? Not to me. Not to any American who reads or hears them.

Instead, they seem to revel in demeaning a President whose administration just accomplished what the Democrats have never been able to do; that is, executing Maduro's demise.

Despite a long, laundry list of Democratic bills and resolutions seemingly hoping for Maduro's eventual removal, Democrats now choose to attack those who were able to make reality their previously voiced ambitions. Yet merely because it was the Trump administration which graciously performed the seemingly impossible, these Democrats now oppose one of America's greatest hours.

To this end, we introduced a resolution today to make clear that the House of Representatives is supportive of the efforts of our brave patriots who deftly brought an end to Maduro's terrorization of not only the good people of Venezuela but also those Americans and others who have experienced Maduro's drug-laden terrorism.

This Special Order and the related House resolution clarify one thing: America is grateful for this administration's efforts to rid the world of a freedom-killing, murderous dictator. We are all better for it.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize my friend, vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the distinguished chairman of the National Security Agency and Cyber Subcommittee on the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, my colleague and the distinguished member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, my good friend and a distinguished member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the Subcommittee on the National Intelligence Enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize my good friend from Florida, Greg Steube, also a member and colleague on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his eloquent comments.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is also my colleague on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for those outstanding comments.

Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in highlighting the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, I wish we all could speak with one voice on this issue. It should never be partisan or controversial to praise the arrest of a man like Nicolas Maduro.

Make no mistake about it, Nicolas Maduro is a murderer, an autocrat, a narcoterrorist, and a thug who has oppressed his people, stolen elections, and turned a once prosperous and free country into a desperate nation that millions have fled. We should all be celebrating the actions of the Trump administration in attempting to bring him to justice.

Sadly, as we have shown today, many of my Democrat friends who were once on the right side of this issue have changed their minds simply because Nicolas Maduro's arrest was orchestrated by someone they don't like, President Trump.

Instead of celebrating the administration of justice by an impartial U.S. court, they bemoan it. They call it unconstitutional, illegal, impeachable, and fascist. They insinuate that our government is somehow no better than Maduro's Socialist and murderous regime. That is just nonsense. In fact, it is embarrassing for those Members.

I respect my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, who have long opposed the Maduro regime and the Chavez regime before it, people like Representatives Salazar and Gimenez, who represent thousands of Venezuelan Americans whose families or themselves have experienced the terror of

Venezuelan Socialism and oppression. I thank them for taking the time to support us and for showing why this effort in Congress is so vital. Without voices like theirs bringing us the true feelings of Venezuelan Americans, we would only have heard from those who cared more about opposing the President than bringing an oppressor to justice.

I also thank the many nameless, faceless Americans who planned and executed this daring and successful arrest. The public will never know their names or see their faces. Americans who have suffered from drug overdoses in their families brought on by illegal narcotics trafficked to the U.S. by Maduro and his cronies will never get to thank those individuals. I thank them, and I want them to know that they are being prayed for and thanked for all that they have done.

Bringing a man like Nicolas Maduro to justice won't bring back the millions of Americans we have lost to drugs or the countless numbers of Venezuelans who have been political victims of the regime, but it is a start.

Mr. Speaker, justice is worth fighting for. A Western Hemisphere free from drug trafficking and gangs, supported and run by illegitimate autocrats, is worth fighting for. Standing behind our principles, even when it is politically inconvenient, is a posture worth fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, as I close tonight, I remind the American people that this administration's law enforcement actions to bring Maduro to justice have received the full support of Republicans in Congress. I hope my Democratic colleagues, who were once in favor of such actions, will be able to put aside their animus toward the President and embrace new possibilities for the people of Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was only last month that we stood on this floor debating this same resolution. My colleagues across the aisle defended the administration's claim that unauthorized U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and threats against Venezuela were about what? Stopping drugs.

At that time, I asked a simple question. I asked--and never received an answer--if this was about drugs, why did the President pardon the former leader of Honduras, a convicted drug trafficker who bragged about shoving drugs up the noses of the gringos.

The administration's own actions have since made the truth absolutely clear: This was never about drugs.

The unauthorized January 3 operation was not conducted to address an imminent threat to the United States, nor to advance democracy in Venezuela. Donald Trump has abandoned even the pretense of national security.

He has been very explicit about what his intent is: We are there to take Venezuela's oil. That is what this was about.

He propped up Maduro's regime, praised Maduro's Vice President as a terrific person, and sidelined the democratic opposition, forcing Maria Corina Machado through the back door of the White House.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Stephen Miller posture as

viceroys of America's newest colony, while American taxpayers are on the hook to ensure Trump's oil baron friends are fed the spoils.

Guess what. There is no plan for what comes next. There is no plan to deal with the entrenched military and paramilitary forces spread across a country twice the size of Iraq. There is no plan if the so-called acting President refuses to serve as Trump's puppet, and no explanation of what the President means when he says he is ``not afraid of putting boots on the ground.''

Mr. Speaker, this administration is winging it and driving the United States headfirst into another open-ended foreign conflict that, as history has shown, is destined to backfire in years to come.

For those of my colleagues who deny this is warmongering, there is still a U.S. aircraft carrier parked in the Caribbean. Tens of thousands of young American men and women remain on standby. If the President wants to drag the United States into a war that the American people don't want--they don't want this--he must come to Congress first.

The debate belongs on this floor. We have all asked for what the cost has been and what the cost will be to the American people. There have been no answers to that either.

Let's be equally clear. Venezuela is not the end of this recklessness. In exchange for a rules-based system the United States built to extend our influence around the globe, Donald Trump is reducing the United States to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies. This isn't making America great again. It is making us isolated and weak.

Donald Trump's new world order is not new. It is the old logic of empires. Might makes right. The strong take from the weak. It is the same backwards worldview that Vladimir Putin uses in Ukraine and the same logic China will cite when it looks at Taiwan. We have seen where that road leads. It leads to endless conflict.

To my Republican colleagues, the American people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war. Now is the time for my colleagues to stand by their oath of office and end this dangerous game before it is too late.

It is time for Congress to reclaim our Article I authority that the Constitution gave us and say that enough is enough. A President is not a king. He is not an emperor. Without an act of Congress, he cannot invade a nation and set us down the road of war.

Let us stand up and do our responsibilities. Let's see where Congress stands. Let's have a vote on this floor and see where the majority of the Members of the United States House of Representatives is. The people deserve to know.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened in the Senate? They had a vote. First, five Republicans joined Democrats, but in his general style, two of them were very threatened by the President and had to reverse their vote the next week.

We need to have the vote here and see if the courage that the five first showed and the three that continued to show, whether my colleagues on the other side are going to have the courage to stand up and do their jobs and make sure that the power that we have in the House of Representatives to oversee the executive branch and not just be a patsy to this executive branch exists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The last time we were here, the chairman was talking all about drugs. Yet, today, I have not heard anything about drugs. The President said it was about drugs. That was the imminent threat to the United States, allegedly. We don't hear anything about drugs. We don't hear anything about democracy. All we hear about is oil and taking those resources.

The fact of the matter is, they talk about ``we are not at war.'' I know that an aircraft carrier is still sitting right there where we led the attack before, where the attack took place. I know there is a blockade taking place right now, so our military is still right off the shore of Venezuela.

I know that we want to make sure that we take care of our responsibility as Members of the House of Representatives and have the oversight and safety of the President, should he decide to strike again, come to the Congress first.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), an individual who has truly been fighting for democracy for the Venezuelan people, who wants them to have the right to vote, an individual who has stood and is trying to keep their TPS status so they are not forced back into the regime of Maduro.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what kind of man, when a woman earned the Nobel Peace Prize, Maria Corina Machado, said that he wanted it, and she, trying to fight for democracy, came in, and he took it. He didn't earn it.

What kind of man does that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The last time I was on this floor, I had a question, and I still have that same question. I heard Members on the other side talk about the President trying to protect the American people. In fact, I heard someone--and I understand why Nicolas Maduro was indicted.

I am going to ask the chairman again. I don't know whether he wants to answer this question, but if that is true, why did the President of the United States pardon a former leader of Honduras, the former President, who was convicted of drug trafficking, who bragged about shoving drugs up the noses of the gringos? Why did the President of the United States pardon him?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida to respond to my question.

Reclaiming my time, yeah, okay, that is funny. It is because he does not care. It never was about drugs. It was always about oil. That is why. He doesn't care. That is why he took the Nobel Peace Prize from someone else who earned it. He doesn't care. He cares about one person--himself--and enriching his family and his friends.

Mr. Speaker, this War Powers Resolution introduced by Representative McGovern would put an immediate end to this administration's reckless military interventions in Venezuela. We cannot allow the Constitution to be usurped by one President who believes he can unilaterally declare war, invade a sovereign nation, and buck the rules-based international system we helped build.

If the House fails to check President Trump's aggression today, it will not end in Venezuela. I know the White House is paying close attention to this vote, and if we don't stand now and reassert our Article I power over matters of war and peace, we will have abdicated one of our most solemn responsibilities and reduced ourselves to a rubberstamp and become no better than the Duma in Russia.

Our constituents sent us here to lower their costs, not to sit on our hands while the President keeps doing what he pleases. Let us make sure we pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this resolution because I simply do not trust this President to truly prioritize democracy and the will of the Venezuelan people.

I represent one of the largest Venezuelan communities in the country. Many of my constituents fled brutal repression under Chavez and Maduro. Most of them were glad to see Maduro captured and face justice, and so was I.

Maduro is a murderous criminal who tortured, imprisoned, impoverished, and oppressed his people. He stole elections, jailed his opponents, drained his nation's wealth, and unleashed the largest peacetime refugee crisis in history.

Mr. Speaker, 8 million Venezuelans were driven into exile.

I was glad to see Maduro held accountable, and this resolution, as my colleague who just spoke, Mr. Diaz-Balart, would clearly know, would not preclude operations like the one that arrested him, especially if the administration finally does what they should have already done: come up with a day-after plan for democracy, present a coherent strategy to Congress, and make a case to the American people.

Arresting Maduro does not fix Venezuela because Maduro did not destroy Venezuela by himself. He relied on criminal affiliates who helped him cling to power. Delcy Rodriguez, Jorge Rodriguez, Diosdado Cabello, Vladimir Padrino Lopez, all of them share Maduro's guilt, but instead of being thrown in jail, they were left in charge.

The machinery of repression was left in place, and the democratic hopes of Venezuelans are being left behind.

My constituents who celebrated Maduro's capture are horrified to see President Trump normalize relations with the same regime that forced them to flee. This President must not make the U.S. complicit in the brutal repression of Venezuelans which continues today.

Yet, Trump continues to jeopardize the lives of lawful Venezuelan immigrants by forcing them back into the chaos after he terminated their TPS.

Trump has lavished praise on Maduro's hand-picked replacement, Delcy Rodriguez, who ran the regime's torture dungeons. Meanwhile, he has dismissed and demeaned Venezuela's democratic leaders like Maria Corina Machado and president-elect Edmundo Gonzalez.

In fact, President Trump hasn't said one word about seeking democracy or human rights in Venezuela.

If Congress backs military action, then democracy, stability, and safety for Venezuelans should be the objective. But those aren't President Trump's goals. He only speaks about getting a cut of the regime's oil sales and ignores their ongoing repression.

I have no illusions about the dangers this regime poses. I am open to the idea that military action may be needed to achieve democracy. If Trump truly cared about Venezuelan democracy, he has tools at his disposal. He has broad authority to defend our national security interests. He could employ covert action, enforce vigorous sanctions, support civil society groups on democracy's front lines, and take action, as he does, against cartels and narcoterrorists. He could use his ``tremendous leverage'' to push for elections in human rights because this resolution doesn't block any of that.

Instead, Trump is just seeking profits for the same Big Oil companies who propped up Maduro for years. He moved on his own with no plan for democracy, and he swapped out one dictator for another and declared mission accomplished.

My vote today isn't about the means that this President used to capture Maduro. Presidents should use the power they have to be tough on dictators who abuse their own people. But given his utter disdain for democracy and his callous disregard for the chaos and violence to which law-abiding Venezuelans are being deported, I simply

cannot give this President a blank check to put troops on the ground.

For all we know, Trump plans to deploy troops to protect the regime's oil facilities, not to liberate Venezuelans. I have known Maria Corina Machado for years, but this week I was able to finally meet her in person for the first time. She is remarkable, inspiring, and I have total faith in her selfless dedication to bring Venezuela out of darkness. More importantly, Venezuelans have faith in her.

When she spoke, she discussed the essential momentum the democracy movement needs and the danger of allowing this lingering dictatorship to reinforce its grip on power. She told us conditions on the ground are dire, that we cannot allow the regime and the military militias to strengthen their hold on power.

Maria Corina has a vision to resurrect Venezuela, and there is a U.S. role to see it through. That is why it is so disturbing that her White House meeting ended with no firm commitments, no timeline for elections, and no guarantees from President Trump.

Instead of opening a pathway to democracy, this President is focused on opening offshore accounts to hoard Venezuelan oil money.

So I support this resolution because of my faith in Maria Corina Machado, not in spite of it. It is rooted in an ongoing commitment to standing resolutely with Venezuelans to demand an end to this illegal regime. It is aligned with my belief that a transition to democracy led by Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzalez must take place.

I hope I am wrong about the President's motivation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I am wrong about the President's motivations, and he brings Congress a real strategy to transition Venezuela to democracy. I hope he was moved by Maria Corina Machado's vision and not just her Nobel Prize. I am a show-me person, not a tell-me person, and so far President Trump has shown that he is more concerned with seizing Venezuela's oil than freeing Venezuela from dictatorship. ``Hasta el final''; ``Until the end.''