Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with presidentially designated terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but I am glad I am not on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thought the Rules Committee was tough. Listening to this debate, I would go out of my mind. I couldn't follow the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I want to correct something. This is not a Democratic resolution. It is a bipartisan resolution. Maybe that is something the chairman is not familiar with, but this is a bipartisan resolution. Democrats and Republicans have sponsored it.

In this Chamber, I guess we have all become accustomed to debating trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. We spend a lot of time renaming post offices and passing bills that do nothing for anybody. Maybe the distinguished chairman is not used to doing big things.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that the issue of war is a big deal. It is a big deal. It should be a big deal to Democrats. It should be a big deal to Republicans.

It is our constitutional responsibility, and so I am here because I am deeply troubled that the President of the United States, in my view, is slowly but surely marching us toward open hostilities with Venezuela. I don't say that as a Democrat. I say it as an American who is worried about this country getting dragged into another potentially endless war.

Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. I mean, that is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about. This is not some hypothetical, abstract debate. Donald Trump has already engaged in acts that are considered hostile under U.S. law.

He has threatened to close Venezuelan airspace. He says that he plans a naval blockade against the country soon. He has warned that military strikes on Venezuela will start ``very soon.''

Our Constitution provides this body, the United States Congress, with the solitary authority to declare war, and the President, despite already engaging in hostile actions toward Venezuela, has neither requested nor received the authorization for the use of military force as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Mr. Speaker, American troops take an oath to protect and defend this country. It is our duty in Congress to debate and vote before they are put into harm's way.

Right now, by placing U.S. military assets off the coast of Venezuela, this administration has them in harm's way right now. That is why, in a bipartisan way, we have introduced this resolution. It provides the House of Representatives with the simple up-or-down vote. It is a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do my colleagues want an unauthorized war in Venezuela or not?

Mr. Speaker, you may want a war in Venezuela. You ought to vote for it if you want it, but I do not want any war in Venezuela. I am joined on this resolution, again, by Members of Congress across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans who, like me, are deeply troubled by the idea of endless wars and of America spending more of its treasure on wars that are not clearly defined, that we have no idea how they will end up, at a time when we can't even provide people healthcare in this country and where we have homeless veterans.

I was here in 2002, Mr. Speaker. I voted against the war in Iraq, and Americans do not want another Iraq. If we intensify hostilities against Venezuela, we have no idea what we are walking into.

The oversight in this Congress has been almost nonexistent given what is going on. Congress has been lied to repeatedly--repeatedly by administrations from both parties who want to use our military in ill- defined and often unwinnable conflicts.

I remember the Bush administration telling us that the war in Iraq would be a cinch. It was clearly not. We spent over a decade at war. We lost American lives, civilian lives, and added trillions of dollars to our debt at the expense of the basic needs of the American people.

At least George Bush had the decency to come to Congress for approval in 2002. Don't the American people deserve that respect today?

This is about whether we want to use taxpayer dollars and risk American lives on regime change, endless wars, and costly quagmires, or whether we want to invest here in our own country and solve our own problems.

For God's sake, we live in a country where we, again, have homeless veterans, where we have hungry school kids, where seniors can't afford their medication, and families struggle to get by.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is immoral. It is not just a strategic failure but a moral failure that we have a President beating the drums of war without so much as a vote in the House of Representatives. This is not America first.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues may say that war is justified. I can't for the life of me figure out that logic, but I went to the classified briefing that the administration organized yesterday. I went to other classified briefings.

I heard no justification that there was some imminent military threat from Venezuela, nothing that would justify the hostilities that the President is engaged in right now in building up troops.

To those who want to go to war and say that this is about drugs and cartels, let me just say that this administration's own Drug Enforcement Administration reports that fentanyl is overwhelmingly produced in other countries using chemicals that come from elsewhere in the world. Venezuela isn't listed as a fentanyl source or transit country in any edition of the National Drug Threat Assessment.

More fentanyl comes from China and Mexico than Venezuela. Maybe the chairman wants to go to war with China and Mexico.

By the way, as is pointed out, Donald Trump pardoned the ex-President of Honduras who was found guilty of drug trafficking. The chairman said nothing about that.

Over 3,667 people in Florida died from fentanyl, and the President of the United States pardoned one of the people who was primarily responsible for getting fentanyl into our country. He also pardoned the dark web guy who smuggled fentanyl in from China. Not a word. No oversight. Who cares because they don't want to say anything about Donald. He is the pardoner in chief. If you want to stop drugs from coming in, start by not pardoning drug dealers.

Those who want to go to war also point out that Nicolas Maduro is a tyrant. I agree that he is a tyrant. He violates the human rights of his own people. He has unlawfully detained Americans and Venezuelans as political prisoners. He is a violent, vicious, brutal dictator. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, the globe is full of violent, vicious tyrants--in China, Russia, and North Korea. Do you want to go to war with all of them?

For God's sake, we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, countries that have awful human rights violations. I hate Maduro, and I condemn him all the time. While we should have a discussion about how to help the people of Venezuela, the answer is not going to war.

Congress should have the guts to at least debate this issue and vote on it and not just cede all of this power to the administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post titled: ``Trump pardons major drug traffickers despite his anti- drug rhetoric.''

[From The Washington Post, Dec. 8, 2025]

Trump Pardons Major Drug Traffickers Despite His Anti-Drug Rhetoric

(By Meryl Kornfield and Emily Davies)

On President Donald Trump's first full day in office this

year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was

convicted of creating the largest online black market for

illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time.

In the months since, he has granted clemency to others,

including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug

kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned

former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had

been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country

as a vast ``narco-state'' that helped to move at least 400

tons of cocaine into the United States.

Overall, Trump--who campaigned against America's worsening

drug crisis and promised to crack down on the illegal flow of

deadly drugs coming across the border--has pardoned or

granted clemency to at least 10 people for drug-related

crimes since the beginning of his second term, according to a

Washington Post analysis. He also granted pardons or

commutations to almost 90 others for drug-related crimes

during the four years of his first term, the analysis showed.

At the same time, Trump has threatened military action

against Venezuela over accusations that the country's

government is

supporting the drug trade and has pushed the Pentagon to

conduct targeted strikes on boats suspected of smuggling

drugs in the Caribbean. The contrasting actions have come

under fire from Democrats and other critics, who say Trump's

broad use of clemency contradicts promises to get tough on

drugs.

``President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop

the flow of narcotics into the United States,'' Sen. Tim

Kaine (D-Virginia) said on the Senate floor Tuesday,

describing the crimes of Ulbricht and Hernandez. ``. . . How

does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics

entering our country?''

Asked about the contrast, White House press secretary

Karoline Leavitt said the pardon of the Honduran president

doesn't make it difficult to defend the administration's

lethal strikes on suspected drug traffickers.

``I think that President Trump has been quite clear, in his

defense of the United States homeland, to stop these illegal

narcotics from coming to our borders, whether that's by land

or by sea, and he's also made it quite clear that he wants to

correct the wrongs of the weaponized Justice Department under

the previous administration,'' she told reporters last

Monday.

Asked about Trump's spate of drug-related pardons and

commutations, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told

The Post that Trump had exercised his constitutional

authority, and she attacked former president Joe Biden.

``The only pardons anyone should be critical of are from

President Autopen, who pardoned and commuted sentences of

violent criminals including child killers and mass

murderers--and that's not to mention the proactive pardons he

`signed' for his family members like Hunter on his way out

the door,'' Jackson said.

Trump and his aides have baselessly claimed that Biden's

staffers routinely used an autopen to sign pardons and other

documents without his knowledge.

Trump has wielded one of the greatest powers of the

presidency, clemency, far more this year than he did in his

first term. He has pardoned almost all of the approximately

1,500 Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack defendants. He also

has pardoned about a dozen members of Congress, mostly

Republicans, including most recently Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-

Texas), who was charged last year with bribery, money

laundering and conspiracy.

By comparison, Trump granted clemency to more than 230

people in his first term, just two of those in his first

year.

The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage

industry, The Post previously reported. Public disclosures

show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this

year on firms that advocate for pardons, clemency and other

forms of executive relief--more than double the total spent

in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking

pardons have paid up to $1 million to hire people close to

the president to plead their case.

Experts say the administration's efforts to strike boats

near Venezuela have not proved effective in limiting the flow

of drugs entering the country because the passage is not

ordinarily used to traffic drugs to the United States. Drugs

containing fentanyl, which have contributed to most recent

drug deaths, are typically manufactured in Mexico and

smuggled into the U.S. across the land border. The

administration has not provided detailed evidence that the

boats they have sunk had drugs on board and were heading for

the United States.

The administration has claimed that the strikes are an

effective deterrent for other drug traffickers. Defense

Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters last week that they

paused the strikes ``because it's hard to find boats to

strike right now, which is the entire point, right?

Deterrence has to matter.'' However, experts say there is no

available evidence to support the theory that trafficking is

down.

``Drug trafficking is like water,'' said Regina LaBelle, a

Georgetown University drug policy professor and former acting

director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

``It's going to find a way to get in.''

Critics of the war on drugs have also long asserted that

the government has insufficiently addressed the root cause of

deaths in the U.S.: addiction. Advocates have urged the

government to invest more in overdose prevention measures,

such as naloxone and treatment options.

The rate of overdose deaths has been on the rise for

decades, fueled by fentanyl since around 2015, until the end

of Biden's term, when the rate declined.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be lectured by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs because, as I mentioned, in Florida, 3,667 people have died from fentanyl.

This President has pardoned drug dealer after drug dealer, and there has not been a peep from my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are now talking about the issue of drugs in the United States, not a peep. I don't know how you explain that to the families of those who lost their lives, number one.

Number two, the chairman made a big deal about pictures, that if you are in a picture with somebody and you touch them, that somehow you are affiliated with them.

Here is a picture of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with a nice handshake. Does that say that Trump is somehow Vladimir Putin's friend? Here is Trump with Kim Jong-un, giving him a nice hug, another dictator that Trump seems to be enamored with. I don't even know what the hell that proves, but the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs seems to think that photos are a big deal.

Let me read our resolution to you. It says: ``Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force.''

That is it. I can't even believe this is controversial. I can't even believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle have a problem with this. This is the most basic stuff.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said some strange things today about how you interpret photographs if the people are shaking hands

or whatever, but, somehow, if your arm is around somebody that means that you are dear friends.

I am just looking at this photo of Donald Trump with his arm around Jeffrey Epstein. By the gentleman's standards, they must be in love.

This debate is not about the gentleman's personal weird code on touching. This is about war, and that is what we are here to talk about. Quite frankly, it deserves a more serious treatment from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who is one of the cosponsors of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Florida have additional speakers? I reserve the balance of my time.

The first thing you said.

Yes.

Read the intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really can't believe this debate from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are talking about things that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation. I mean, they are talking about fentanyl. Well, fentanyl is coming from China. That is the problem. Do you want to bomb China? Then make the case to bomb China. That is where fentanyl is coming from.

They are talking about nuclear war. I don't even know what that has to do with what we are debating here today.

I think what is clear is my Republican friends are basically covering up for the President, who is sleepwalking us right into a war in Venezuela. That is the issue here.

The President, by his own words, has said that he wants to block the airspace in Venezuela. He has talked about troops in Venezuela. He is stationing American forces around Venezuela. Under U.S. law, those are acts of hostility.

I have seen this movie before, where my Republican friends get up and they talk tough: Let's go to war, let's go to war. Then we go to war, and it becomes a catastrophe. Then they say: Well, I never voted for a war. Oh, I didn't do that. That is not me.

Well, under the Constitution, we have a responsibility to declare war. We have a responsibility to debate war. Quite frankly, this Congress, given what is going on in Venezuela, ought to be doing more oversight and ought to be debating this issue. That it is somehow controversial or undercuts our attempts to stop drugs from coming into this country is ridiculous. It is ludicrous.

I have been around for a while. The one thing I can tell you with certainty, it is easy to get into a war. It is hard as hell to get out of war. I have been around long enough to hear Presidents of both parties talk about war as something simple: You can get into it, you get out of it easy, no big deal. That has never happened. That has never happened.

Even the Pentagon says it will be very complicated to topple Maduro, and what might result might be more violence, more chaos. It could be a quagmire.

All we are saying here is, let's do our job. If you don't want to do the job, I don't know why the hell you are here, seriously. The Foreign Affairs Committee ought to be taking the lead on this. This shouldn't be controversial.

My resolution is a bipartisan resolution. It deserves bipartisan support. This is the least we can do. This is the least we can do.

When we go to war, our troops have no choice but to follow the orders that are given to them. The bottom line is, we have a responsibility to make sure they don't get sent into a mess, that we know what the hell we are doing, that there is a clearly defined mission, and that this is the right thing to do.

It is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. We have homeless veterans. We can't provide people in this country with healthcare. People don't have adequate housing. People are hungry.

You want to spend billions and trillions of dollars on another war. Well, I don't want any part of it. Please vote for this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of speaking in favor of H. Con. Res. 61.

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the chairman's remarks later about his incorrect statements. What I want to point out is, since September 2, the administration has carried out 25 known strikes, killing 95 people. Among these was a so-called double-tap strike where U.S. Forces killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a destroyed vessel in open sea.

The administration now refuses to release the video of this strike, denying the American people the ability to see for themselves what is being done in their names. In fact, they are denying Members of this House, including me and I believe the chairman himself, from seeing that video. Many believe this strike may constitute a war crime.

Following another strike, on October 16, the Department of Defense repatriated two survivors to their home countries rather than prosecute them in the United States courts, as we would expect if these individuals were, in fact, dangerous drug traffickers bound for the United States.

The fact of the matter is a number of the individuals that he talked about, if they were in the United States, they would have been tried in our courts. That decision raises serious questions about the administration's own assessment of threat, necessity, and purpose.

These strikes have not been authorized by Congress, and the administration has not sought congressional authorization to use lethal military force to address alleged criminal activity that under the United States law--and we are a country of laws--does not carry the death penalty.

That is a profound escalation, and one Congress has neither debated nor proved. They openly covet Venezuelan oil. That is what this is about. The President is coveting Venezuelan oil.

Despite promises to end wars, this President is threatening military invasions not just in Venezuela but across the Western Hemisphere.

Just last night, President Trump declared: ``Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America,'' and that ``the shock . . . will be like nothing they have ever seen. . . .''

This is not a strategy. This is a game, and the President is playing it with the lives of American servicemembers, threatening a regime- change war with no plan for what would happen next.

This President wants to be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. However, this Congress--Congress is not a part of the executive branch. We are a coequal branch of government. The Constitution vests this body with authority over matters of war and peace. That power has too often been ceded to the executive branch.

Earlier this month, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, we repealed outdated authorizations for use of military force to prevent Presidents of either party from abusing it. We cannot now abandon our constitutional duty over these strikes in the Western Hemisphere.

Even if you happen to disagree with me when I say these strikes--and they are--not about making Americans safer, that these strikes are about oil, that they are about another reckless foreign war or stretching Presidential power toward that of a would-be king--all of those things happen to be true, by the way--this vote is ultimately not about whether you agree with the administration's policy. It is not about whether any President can take these actions. It is about, and what it should be about, is whether this President can take these actions without congressional approval.

Every Member of Congress should want to do their job. Congress must make clear--all of us--that no President can unilaterally draw the United States into a conflict that the American people do not want.

Democrats and Republicans, those of us who were elected by the people, are the closest to the people. We should not shirk our responsibility. We should make sure that, right here, we do what the Constitution tells us to do and have debate and vote on the House floor so that all of America knows where we stand on matters of going to war or not. That is what they elected us to do.

For us to just give away that power to the executive branch is not doing our job. We should have a vote because it is the rule of law. We are the United States of America. We are not part of the Duma or have a Putin who just does what they want with getting around and not dealing with the people's Representatives. We should stand for the power that was vested in us. That is what this is really all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just say that the President said yesterday that

that oil was the United States' oil, not the Venezuelan people.

I thank the gentlewoman for her passion, though. I only wish she had the same passion to speak out against the Trump administration's mass deportation of Venezuelans legally in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, if this truly was about addressing drugs, then tell me why the administration pardoned Ross Ulbricht, who ran one of the largest online drug marketplaces in history and was serving a double life sentence.

Why did the President pardon the former President of Honduras, whom a U.S. court convicted and sentenced for flooding the U.S. with 400 tons of cocaine and bragged?

He said: `` . . . shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos,'' and he was pardoned by the President of the United States into our districts.

I am a former special narcotics prosecutor, and I know this to be a fact. You don't run a serious counternarcotics strategy by carrying out the death penalty for those who are at the bottom of the drug trade while freeing those who are the very top and ordering them to come.

At the same time, the administration asks us to believe that deploying fighter jets, an aircraft carrier, and more than 15,000 troops to the Caribbean is merely a counterdrug mission. This is the largest U.S. military buildup in the region since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If this were really about drugs, why are the United States forces seizing oil tankers? The stated mission, the scale of buildup, and the actions taken simply do not align.

The administration can't keep its story straight, and it is no longer trying to hide its real motivations. Senior officials, including the President himself, have made it clear that the real objective is provoking a conflict with Venezuela to oust Maduro. Trump's chief of staff said to Vanity Fair: ``He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the chairman to tell me why the President of the United States decided to let convicted drug pushers, convicted in

United States courts and in jail, be pardoned if this is about drugs. I am waiting for an answer. I haven't heard that yet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting to hear why major drug dealers, two major drug dealers, were pardoned by the President of the United States. I will wait.

Nothing?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman from the National Security Subcommittee can tell me, since the

chairman can't, why the President of the United States pardoned a narcoterrorist and the former President of Honduras. Maybe he can tell me why. I am trying to get an answer.

Nothing? Walking out? Does he have an answer for me? Why would the President of the United States pardon a convicted drug dealer, over 400 million tons, killing Americans? I got nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), an esteemed member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Again, I offer the chairman, Mr. Rogers, the opportunity to tell me why the President pardoned these drug dealers.

I am proud of this institution and who we are. I am a Member of the House of Representatives, a former chairman of the committee.

I would also ask the chairman: Why don't we do hearings?

Why can't we bring the administration into the Foreign Affairs Committee and have them answer questions of Members of Congress on what they are doing and why they are doing it?

That is our job. That is our responsibility.

Have we had one hearing on Venezuela on drugs coming in? Not a one. Have we brought anybody in from the administration?

That is our job.

Why don't we do our job?

That is why we were elected. I would hope that the chairman would have some hearings so that we can discuss this as Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), who is an original cosponsor of this important resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can use my time if he can answer why the President of the United States pardoned major drug dealers who were convicted and doing time. It was the little guys. I will wait.

Also, if this is about drugs, the fact is, the drugs come from China, the fentanyl. The mainstay of fentanyl is from China. I haven't heard China in this debate at all.

In fact, the President runs around and says some of those--we are back selling chips or whatever he wants to do with China, which is a danger to our national security, killing our people. The number one drug that is killing Americans is fentanyl. There are no ships there.

My main focus is, as I said earlier, even if you disagree with me, why don't we do our work as Members of Congress? Why aren't we having hearings, open, public hearings with members of the administration coming to testify before us and the American people so that they can hear for themselves?

In prior Congresses, when I was the chair, even when Mr. McCaul was the chair, and there was a Democrat in the office, they were bringing in the Secretary of State on a consistent basis, subpoenaing them, having them come in to address certain things, and they came in.

I make judgments now to go to hearings when I see someone from the administration is going to be there, and, boy, that is very rare. Generally, it is just somebody on the other side, from the private sector or something of that nature on foreign affairs. The diplomats and representatives from the State Department and people directly from the administration don't come before our committee.

No matter what your position is, this is about the United States House of Representatives doing its duty and responsibility.

Let me tell you, when it comes to drugs, I had a career in fighting drugs as a prosecutor. No one, to this day, fights harder and wants to make sure that we lock up and bring to justice those who bring in and those who sell narcotics in our communities. We still have laws because when we did, we didn't execute them. We tried them in a court of law.

That is who we are. That is not who Vladimir Putin is and who some of these other authoritarian governments are. That is what they do. That is not what we do here.

We have values, and we have a job to do, as Members of the United States House of Representatives, for the people. I am saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's do our jobs. Let's bring in the administration and members of the administration. Let them testify and talk to us, where we can question them, and talk to the American people because, ultimately, this is about them.

The American people should be able to see what took place in those waters when those two individuals were hanging on the boat. There was no problem showing all the others. What are we hiding from the American people? We, as Members of Congress, should be demanding that the administration be accountable to the American people, and the best way to do that is for them to come to Congress because that is our job.

Ultimately, I am saying we should do our jobs as Members of Congress and not give away our power to someone who would like to just be an authoritarian. We don't have that kind of government.

That is why the United States of America was created in the first place, to make sure that one man or woman couldn't make unilateral decisions around the United States Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this War Powers Resolution would immediately end President Trump's extrajudicial boat strikes in the Western Hemisphere, which have never been approved by Congress and far exceed the President's authority.

We are a country of laws. Individuals in the streets have to abide by our laws. The President of the United States should be abiding by our laws.

In our laws, you convict somebody in court. You can't just go out and kill them. What I had to do was build a case in public, try that case, and convince a jury to unanimously convict someone so that they would go to jail. That was my job.

I think that the President of the United States cannot summarily determine that he is going to go kill someone without coming and getting authorization from this Congress.

The worst criminals have had to go to court. The fact of the matter is, we know of two such people, the worst of the worst. They sold drugs and said they were going to shove it up their noses. He wasn't killed. He shouldn't have been killed. He was tried. He was from another country. In fact, he was the President of another country.

He was tried in a court of law, and he was convicted by a unanimous jury. He is on the streets today. Why? Because the President of the United States said he deserved the pardon. No matter how many people he killed, no matter how many drugs he brought in, the President of the United States said it is okay, we are going to send him back on the streets.

There is another individual who sold drugs over the internet, killing Americans. He was not executed. He was tried and convicted unanimously in a court. He is back on the streets.

As a prosecutor, I would have been--and the family members of the victims, of those two, in particular, and others like them, for them to be convicted and then released by the President of the United States of America, is that justice? Is that protecting us? What kind of message is that sending to just go after the little guy in a boat who was instructed by others?

How many of the big kingpins have been brought to justice? Who is going after and building a case to prosecute them and have them locked up in jail?

This administration wants to say these strikes are about stopping drugs from entering the country. Putting aside the fact that drug smuggling is not a crime punishable by death, or that these boats could have, per the law, been intercepted by the Coast Guard and suspected traffickers questioned and prosecuted in a U.S. court, this is not a counternarcotics operation.

The administration's actions, whether the largest military deployment to the region since the Cuban Missile Crisis, the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker, ordering a blockade of Venezuela, or the many public statements issued by U.S. officials, including President Trump--

Let me just say, I see him putting up a picture.

Let me tell you about that picture. That is diplomacy before he was the President of the United States. He was a member--

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of December 16, 2025, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 61) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with presidentially designated terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere, 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 extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now we have cartels operating in our backyard. They are kidnapping Americans, extorting families, trafficking women and children, and flooding our towns with fentanyl to maximize death and addiction on American soil.

Someone tell me that I am wrong. I don't hear anything. Just look at the images next to me. It is not photoshopped. None of this is new. It is just new that it is being defeated by President Trump and brought to an end by President Trump. This violence comes from the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels. It comes from Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and Cartel of the Suns, headed by Nicolas Maduro, just to name a few.

The President has every bit of Article II authority to defend the United States of America from these imminent threats. These cartels that are doing this are an imminent threat. These cartels have tens of thousands of members who wake up every day and see it as their sole mission to flood the United States with lethal drugs. My Democrat colleagues want to ignore that.

Sinaloa and Jalisco alone have 45,000 members combined. The Gulf Cartel has 50,000 members. MS-13 has another 30,000. They are coming across the Gulf constantly. Mr. Speaker, 365 days a year, 7 days a week, they are coming to the United States of America with their violence. That is the definition of ``imminent.''

These drug cartels are highly organized and militarized. They are terrorist networks that have convinced my colleagues they are nothing more than small street gangs.

They control territory, run armed convoys, use drones for surveillance, and communicate through encrypted networks like the military. They terrorize entire countries with extreme violence, and they terrorize the United States of America and our people. They spread carnage wherever they go, not just across the border but on our side of the border, as well, right here in the United States of America.

Look at this morbid scene we will put up here. These two men are about to be decapitated literally out in the open by the Gulf Cartel. The tactics of these cartels are the same as those used by al-Qaida and ISIS. These are terrorist networks. Some are given safe haven by foreign governments. Others, like Tren de Aragua, take orders from Nicolas Maduro. Americans have paid the price for it.

Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was murdered in Georgia by a confirmed member of Tren de Aragua. Claretha Daniels and Justin Lawless were executed outside of their Bronx apartment by six Tren de Aragua terrorists. These were neighbors of my ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, a 74-year-old American rancher was killed in Brownsville, Texas, when his truck hit an IED planted by the cartel. That is exactly the same kind of thing that took off my legs.

Democrats don't want the President to be able to defend America from these terrorists. Even more tragic is the fact that nearly 80,000 Americans overdosed last year on fentanyl, cocaine, and other drugs trafficked by cartels. Democrats don't want to protect us from that either.

In fact, yesterday, after we had a classified briefing, the gentleman on my left, the ranking member, went directly to the press to claim that these strikes were not protecting America. He literally said that these strikes were not stopping drugs. Everything that he said is very easy for me to prove wrong.

Every drug boat sunk is literally drugs not coming to the United States of America. Every narcoterrorist killed is an American life, like Laken Riley or Claretha Daniels, saved. The threat is pressing, and it is frequent.

In November, the Coast Guard announced it seized 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean since the start of 2025. This is enough cocaine to harm nearly 170 million Americans. Congressional authorization is not required to carry out precise, limited strikes.

My colleagues did not object when prior Presidents conducted military operations in Yemen and Libya and Syria, operations which were also limited and successful.

This resolution is also reckless and poorly written. It prevents the President from acting against any foreign terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere. Under this resolution, the President could strike al-Qaida or ISIS in the Middle East. If those same terrorists came across into the Western Hemisphere, they could be untouchable and free to kill as many Americans as they want.

Democrats are not putting forward an authorized use of military force, telling the President how to combat any of these issues. Democrats are putting forward a resolution to say the President cannot do anything about MS-13 or Tren de Aragua and every other cartel. That is giving aid and comfort to narcoterrorists. That is ignoring an imminent threat.

The cartels are relentless and ruthless. They have military capabilities and use them every day against the American homeland. When a threat poses immediate danger to Americans, the Constitution gives the President the authority to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would let the ranking member know that, just in the last year in his district, he has lost at least 140 people to overdose, which apparently he does not want to protect his community from those like the President wants to protect his community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar), the chairwoman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, to Representative Himes, I tell him that he has had 182 overdoses in his district in the last year and lost somebody named Angel Samaniego by a suspected Tren de Aragua member.

Voting for this resolution to limit the President absolutely is not standing with the United States of America. There are people deliberately targeting Americans, and he is saying the President can do nothing about it. That is what his vote will say today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), the chair of the Europe Subcommittee.

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

I think the other side should take a look at the chart. You can see when operations were kicking off in September, there were 3 strikes, going up in October to 11 strikes. Then it started to come down. Why? Because people started thinking about, am I going to push off the dock in this boat full of drugs and then take a Hellfire through the hull of my vessel sitting out here in the middle of the Gulf because I am transporting drugs to the United States of America? It dropped down to seven, dropped down to four, and it is going to continue to drop off because, finally, those that are shipping drugs to the United States of America are recognizing there are real consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I don't quite reserve yet.

I would let the next speaker on the other side know that they lost 116--Ms. Kamlager-Dove had 116 overdoses in the last year. I can count at least six individuals killed recently by MS-13. The President is working to protect her district from MS-13.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs.

Mr. Speaker, I would let Ms. Jayapal know that in her district they have lost 237 people in the last year from overdoses and had a number of people killed by MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. The President is working to protect her people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would let Representative Omar know that in her district, she lost 205 people in the last year from overdose and have had people killed by MS-13. Teenagers have been killed by MS-13. The President is working to stop that from happening.

I would also remind the ranking member that just yesterday--he should know this, he was standing on stage with me--we had a classified briefing

with the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State. His comments afterwards did not reflect the truth of what was said, but he was there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much debate time remains.

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

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member made the claim that nobody fights harder against drugs. He made a big speech. Nobody fights harder against drugs than the President of the United States of America. He is the one sinking the boats.

Democrats are the ones saying any terrorist organization, no matter how many people they kill, behead, abduct, no matter how much drugs they traffic, the President shall not have the authority to go out there and combat them.

If there is a boat coming across with anthrax in it, the President can't hit it. If there is a boat coming across that had something brought over from Iran, the President can't deal with it. Anything that comes across in the Western Hemisphere--that is literally what his legislation says--the President cannot go out there and defend the United States of America from imminent threats.

How imminent is this threat of drugs? Mr. Speaker, 365 days a year, 7 days a week prior to President Trump starting to sink their boats that they were bringing to the United States of America, that is as imminent as it gets. It is as imminent as the Sun rising. That is how prevalent that threat has been.

The President is finally bringing it to an end. Nobody fights harder than the

President of the United States of America. Nobody is fighting harder to allow drugs into this country than Democrats with this reckless and ridiculous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman yields back his time.

Mr. Speaker, let me put this up. I was asked to take it down for a moment. Let me take a second and put this up. I will get to it.

This resolution, plain and simple, is about telling the President he has no authority to combat terrorists in the Western Hemisphere. Those are the words of this resolution. It is not a secret. Anybody can read it.

The President doesn't have the authority to combat MS-13, Tren de Aragua, Sinaloa Cartel, take your pick. If the President says they are terrorists, and they are in the Western Hemisphere, the President can't touch them.

That is what they are trying to do. They want to tie his hands and not let him defend the United States of America.

We are not talking about street gangs. They are militarized threats. They have taken over entire apartment complexes and neighborhoods in the United States.

My colleagues say this resolution is just about putting Congress on record, so let's put Congress on record.

If you stand with protecting the United States of America against narcoterrorists, then oppose this resolution. It is plain and simple. If you stand shoulder to shoulder with MS-13, Tren de Aragua, and Sinaloa Cartel, and the dictators who work hand in hand with them, like Nicolas Maduro in this photo, then this resolution is for you. Vote for it.

We know exactly where some of my colleagues stand. You can look to see where they stand in this photo. Let's talk a little bit about that in a moment. I will touch on something else first.

Since President Trump took office, we have seen our Democrat colleagues fight to unmask agents, to dox Border Patrol officers. We have seen them issue warnings ahead of immigration raids. They spent taxpayer dollars to keep illegal immigrants in the United States. Now, Democrats are going even further with this resolution and saying the President can't protect our country.

I am going to show you this photo. I actually thought a lot about this photo as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee because I take photos with foreign heads of state, diplomats, and other people from other countries on a daily basis. I shake hands and greet people. Whether I like them or not, I shake hands. It is something that I do, but I can tell you what I don't do. I do not let other people wrap their arms around me unless they are my kids, my friends, or my family.

That is Nicolas Maduro's hand right there. I will put a little arrow there. That is Ranking Member Meeks, who has been arguing with me for the last little while, right here. That is his arm around the ranking member. I don't let people put their arms around me, especially not people like that.

In this photo of Nicolas Maduro, you probably also recognize John Kerry. It is sad to see that. I think it says a lot about the origination of this bill, the heart of this bill. This is not a handshake. It is an embrace of somebody with a relationship. That is what happens.

If somebody puts their arm around me, that means they have a relationship with me. To me, this says a lot about who this bill stands shoulder to shoulder with.

Do you stand shoulder to shoulder with Nicolas Maduro, with his arms wrapped around you, or do you stand shoulder to shoulder to protect the United States of America and our people from the people who are murdering us and sending their drugs over? The choice is up to you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say maybe I can teach the chairman something about diplomacy. Maybe he doesn't know anything about diplomacy.

First, let me talk about the picture he tried to show me. That was a bipartisan trip, Democrats and Republicans, working together. It was called the Boston Group. We were bringing the opposition and at that time the Chavistas together.

Mr. Speaker, we were diplomatically working together. We were trying to help the people of Venezuela.

In fact, we can also see how long ago that was. I had all-black hair at the time. I think I looked good. I got gray. I had all-black hair because that was back in 2002. I was a new Member of Congress, trying to work together with diplomacy from the very beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't come here with prop photos because I am here to debate substance. I am here to find out why the President of the United States pardoned convicted drug dealers. I have not gotten an answer to that yet.

If we are talking about pictures, I could have come with pictures of President Trump with his arm around Kim Jong Un. I could have come with pictures of President Trump offering the red carpet to Vladimir Putin. I could have come with a whole lot of pictures of President Trump with Epstein. I didn't come to play games. My colleague is playing a game on the House floor.

I came because we have serious business here. This is not a game. This is about our responsibility as Members of Congress in addressing issues that should be before this body. It is about us having a debate in committee and holding the administration accountable, as we do any President. It is about us being the Representatives of people who elect us.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a game. Diplomacy is not a game. War is not a game. There are rules in war. When people violate rules in war, they have to be held accountable. When people violate rules in our cities, they have to be held accountable.

The people who are in these positions--law enforcement officers, police officers, and the President of the United States--have to be held responsible. If we close our eyes on one, our country is not the country we have said it is.

I said earlier on the floor during this debate: My War Powers Resolution to end this administration's extrajudicial strikes on boats in the Western Hemisphere, those bombs are not about drugs.

If the administration did want to stop drugs, Trump would not have pardoned the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, or Ross Ulbricht who operated the Silk Road drug marketplace. He wouldn't seize an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela or threaten CIA operations, blockades, and strikes on Venezuela.

This is no joke. This is serious. This is not about drugs. It is about regime change. It is about being honest with the people of America. That is what the Chief of Staff of the President just did. She didn't talk about drugs. She talked about regime change. It is Trump himself saying it.

He said he wanted the oil. He said it was our oil, not Venezuela's oil. He said it is our oil and our territory. We are going to take it back. That is the tweet of the President. This is no joke. This is no game. This is serious business.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into these back-and-forths. I have been waiting for an answer because this is serious business. The American people want an answer that they can't quite get yet. I can't get anybody at a hearing from the administration to answer the question. I can't even get anybody from the administration, when I saw some yesterday, to answer the question. I have been waiting here. The American people want to know why a President of the United States would pardon two drug dealers. They are not just accused. They are convicted and in jail. They were, but not anymore. They are free men now.

I have been waiting for an answer. I am not playing jokes. This is very serious. I am asking everybody, all of my Republican colleagues, anybody who speaks, anybody, just answer the question. We are on C- SPAN. Here is an opportunity to tell the American people why the President of the United States, for whom you say this is about drugs, would let go of two major convicted drug dealers, not small guys, but major. I just don't know why kingpins can get away with doing and pedaling drugs in the United States, but a peon in the operation must die.

Even if you survived a strike and are holding on for dear life--you have no weapons, no phone, no anything--you are still an imminent danger, so they say, to the United States.

We have pictures that will show whether or not they were a threat to the United States while holding onto that boat. The administration has decided they can show all the others, but the American people cannot see that.

I have been waiting for an answer. The American people want an answer. I will wait.

Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

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

Let me just say this real quick, because the chairman keeps going on about these pictures. I am not going to keep belaboring, but I do remember something, if you want to talk about it now.

I think that we know that Kim Jong-un, who he is, et cetera. I have a quote, if you really want to talk about relationships, Mr. Chairman, that you can get directly from the President of the United States. When he was talking about Kim Jong-un, here is what he said: ``We fell in love, okay? No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters.'' We are in love.

That is Kim Jong-un. You can also talk about him and Xi, where fentanyl is coming into the United States. Those are real relationships.

Any time you are ready to answer the question about why somebody, the President of the United States, would pardon kingpins in the drug trade, I will get an answer. I have been waiting. I have been asking everybody. Not only the chairman but any Republican that wants to make a statement, if they could just explain to the American people. They don't have to explain it to me. Explain it to the American people. Just give me some explanation of why the President of the United States would pardon convicted drug traffickers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

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

I am not going to talk to my colleagues because they are not going to answer the question of why two convicted people, not just indicted, were pardoned by the United States President.

Mr. Speaker, I will address my fellow Americans. Congress would need to pass an Authorization for Use of Military Force if President Trump wanted to put boots on the ground or conduct military strikes in Venezuela to abide by the law.

For that, Republicans in Congress would need to cast their vote on whether to commit U.S. Armed Forces to an open-ended conflict that their constituents, the American people, certainly do not want.

Trump ran on ending forever wars, but now he has forgotten what they are, what his own Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, characterized as ``interventionism, undefined wars, regime change . . . . and feckless nation building.'' Yet, with Venezuela, Trump is provoking a new war right in our backyard and threatening to destabilize the entire region.

Let's be clear: Claiming a war with Venezuela will be quick and easy is a fantasy. Maduro is by no means a good guy. He lost the last election and has violently repressed the Venezuelan people to stay in power against their democratic will. To think that if the U.S. military just chases him out, then Venezuela's military and armed groups around the country will welcome democracy with open arms is naive at best.

This administration has no plan for the day after. It has no strategy. If Members do not vote for Mr. McGovern's War Powers Resolution, they are signing their name to everything that comes after, a forever war in our own hemisphere, a quagmire the likes of Vietnam in a country twice the size of Iraq for a length of time that is completely unknown.

How many billions of dollars of taxpayers' money would be spent so Pete Hegseth can play a wartime general? How many U.S. servicemembers would make the ultimate sacrifice so Donald Trump can do in Latin America what Vladimir Putin does in Europe?

The power over matters of war and peace belongs to the United States Congress. It is our most solemn duty given in the Constitution of the United States, and votes like this are our most consequential. They are literally about life and about death.

If history has taught us anything, it is that wars are easy to start, but they are incredibly difficult to end. The choice you make on this vote will carry a long, a very long, a very long part in this history.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with this. Let me just tell you, the cameras of history are rolling. What will be the downstream effects of destabilizing the country, an entire region? Anyone who tells you they know, they are lying.

What we do know is that the American people don't want this. That is unequivocal. Even President Trump's supporters do not understand why he would do this.

I ask you, let's vote in this House for Mr. McGovern's bill. It is the right thing to do. Vote so the American people know how you stood at this point in history.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of December 16,

2025, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against 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 extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is weak. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous. It is also not about oversight. It is not about the Constitution. Just like the last resolution, it is about tying the President's hands, specifically in Venezuela. It is about telling President Trump that he does not have the authority to defend the United States of America.

This resolution is preemptive surrender. As written, it limits the President's ability to respond to future threats posed by Venezuela.

If Russia delivers nukes there, the President cannot respond. If Iran delivers a dirty bomb there, the President can't respond. If China delivers anthrax or some other biological weapon, like they did with COVID-19, but far more deadly, the President can't respond. No matter what the threat, the President cannot respond.

Additionally, this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela. The Authorization for Use of Military Force process exists in Congress, but Democrats are not writing a scope of action for the President to defend the United States of America. This resolution is a blanket statement to say to the President that he cannot defend the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, no matter the threat emanating from Venezuela, you cannot defend. You cannot defend me. You cannot defend our country against it.

This resolution is not stopping war. It is not stopping invasion. It is not stopping drug running. It is not stopping terrorism. It is not stopping the President. It is just stopping the President from acting decisively before Americans die. That is what it stops.

Let's be clear about who we are dealing with. Venezuela is the largest and best-funded cartel in the world. We just saw the ranking member with Nicolas Maduro. Maduro had his hand around him. He is not a legitimate head of state. He is a legitimate narcoterrorist who is poisoning Americans.

All the stuff we talked about in the last debate is Maduro. He is the head of a cartel who will abduct somebody, behead somebody, or torture somebody to support his political ends.

Both Republican and Democrat administrations agree that Maduro is an illegitimate dictator who rules through repression, fraud, and violence. He uses the Venezuelan military to move cocaine into the United States. That is not theory. This is a state-run criminal enterprise. Venezuela is not a gang. It is a cartel state. It rakes in billions, moving more than 250 metric tons of Columbian cocaine through their country every year.

The United States already has bipartisan sanctions on Venezuelan oil. President Trump supported them. President Biden kept them. Maduro is violating those sanctions. We just caught him doing it again. A ghost ship was intercepted, smuggling Venezuelan oil. Maduro admitted the oil was his.

Here is the simple question: How do we enforce sanctions if we are not allowed to stop the shipments? The answer is that we cannot. Interdicting those Venezuelan oil shipments is not war. It is sanction enforcement. It is law and order.

Given that it is the Venezuelan Government that is the cartel, the trafficker, the one moving these ships, that is why it requires the military to do so.

This resolution reads as if Maduro wrote it himself. It gives a narcoterrorist dictator a free pass to keep trafficking drugs, funding criminal networks, and killing Americans because it appears Democrats hate President Trump more than they can love America.

President Trump has the authority and the obligation to take limited and targeted action to protect the United States of America wherever those threats emanate from.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is serious. It is not a joke. It is not just about pictures, but pictures tell a thousand words.

You came here to prevent the President from defending the United States of America, plain and simple. There have been deaths in Florida. There have been deaths in Representative McGovern's district: 262 overdoses in the last year, people beaten by MS-13, strangled by MS-13, stabbed 32 times by MS-13. The list goes on.

That is what the President is trying to defend from happening in the United States of America. That is as serious as it gets, and it absolutely matters that Nicolas Maduro has his arm around the authors of this legislation that would prevent the President from defending against that country, their cartels, their terrorists, and the drugs coming through that country. What the President is doing in the Gulf is protecting the homeland of the United States of America, protecting the homeland.

I would give this last comment to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern): I never saw the things that I did as big or small. Risking my life for my country, I simply saw as my duty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), the chair of the Europe Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a lecture anyway to the Speaker in reference to what Mr. McGovern said.

I shake a lot of people's hands that I don't like. I definitely don't let them put their arm around me. There is a big difference. People with common sense recognize that. I wouldn't speak for him, but I suspect he would live life in the same way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, for every one of my colleagues on the other side, it is about drugs. It is about the drugs being prevented from going into their community, like Representative Castro's, who had 101 people die last year from overdose and somebody murdered by Tren de Aragua on June 16, 2024. It is absolutely about preventing those things. It is about preventing those things, and they are going to allow it in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I have three more speakers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time until the gentlemen yield back.

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

The defense of America is what is on the table here. The questions are simple: Does the President have the authority to defend the United States of America against these cartels, against their drugs, their beheadings, their murders? Does he or does he not?

My Democrat friends are arguing that he does not have the authority to defend our country, to protect the people of the United States of America, to protect the people in their communities. That is their argument.

The fact of the matter is, the President has the authority to defend our country, and he has the duty to defend our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.