To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.

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.

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.

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 116: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 158: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 220: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 251: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 253: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 282: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 349: Mr. Min and Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 397: Mr. Jeffries.

H.R. 429: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 438: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 485: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 488: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 498: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 516: Mr. Norman.

H.R. 520: Mr. Min.

H.R. 539: Mrs. Trahan.

H.R. 585: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 718: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 821: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 865: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 869: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 879: Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 921: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 945: Ms. Bynum, Ms. McDonald Rivet, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 953: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1027: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1054: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1055: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1078: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1110: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 1162: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 1175: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1181: Mr. Nunn of Iowa and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1241: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1246: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1254: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 1277: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1285: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 1329: Ms. Strickland, Ms. McBride, Mrs. Hayes, Ms.

Ansari, Mr. Crow, Ms. Gillen, Mr. Landsman, and Mr. McDowell.

H.R. 1361: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1369: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1394: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1398: Mrs. Kim.

H.R. 1404: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 1412: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1421: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1464: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 1475: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1492: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.

H.R. 1502: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1522: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 1529: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1546: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1564: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 1576: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 1628: Ms. Salazar, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr.

Brecheen, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 1659: Mr. Riley of New York and Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1661: Ms. Balint and Mr. Keating.

H.R. 1695: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1775: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 1810: Mr. Morelle.

H.R. 1960: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1983: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 1986: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1991: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1993: Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Hinson, and Ms. Davids of

Kansas.

H.R. 2028: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 2036: Mr. Kean and Mr. Casten.

H.R. 2055: Ms. Morrison.

H.R. 2062: Mr. Moore of North Carolina.

H.R. 2068: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2094: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2141: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2152: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2165: Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 2192: Mr. Nadler and Mr. Bera.

H.R. 2199: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 2232: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 2244: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2253: Ms. Kamlager-Dove.

H.R. 2257: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2315: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 2370: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2402: Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Sewell.

H.R. 2467: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 2496: Mr. Messmer.

H.R. 2531: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 2672: Mr. Min.

H.R. 2678: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Ms. Ross, and Mr.

McGovern.

H.R. 2680: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 2703: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 2705: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 2716: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 2718: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 2727: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 2728: Mr. Fields.

H.R. 2731: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 2799: Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 2829: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2878: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2902: Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 2941: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2947: Ms. Simon.

H.R. 2986: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 3028: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 3184: Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Turner of Ohio.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Reschenthaler.

H.R. 3246: Mr. Min.

H.R. 3261: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 3277: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3316: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 3333: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 3337: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3350: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3367: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 3447: Mr. Cline and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3497: Mr. Correa, Ms. Salazar, Ms. Lois Frankel of

Florida, Ms. Lee of Florida, Mr. Schmidt, and Mr.

Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3513: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.

H.R. 3514: Mr. Menendez.

H.R. 3526: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3534: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3565: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 3604: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3629: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3694: Mr. Case.

H.R. 3699: Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 3740: Ms. Balint and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 3791: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 3793: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3858: Mr. Hunt.

H.R. 3867: Mr. Rutherford.

H.R. 3868: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 3885: Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 3931: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 3959: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4083: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4130: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4141: Mr. Min.

H.R. 4151: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4164: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4167: Mr. Mackenzie.

H.R. 4169: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 4176: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4194: Mr. Williams of Texas.

H.R. 4206: Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rutherford, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 4231: Mr. Smith of Washington.

H.R. 4242: Mr. Murphy.

H.R. 4291: Mr. Self.

H.R. 4299: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 4317: Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, and Mr.

Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 4464: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 4521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4582: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4583: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4585: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 4606: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 4611: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 4640: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 4646: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4660: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4662: Mr. Takano, Mr. Whitesides, Mr. Vargas, Mr.

Lieu, Mr. Levin, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4677: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4710: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 4721: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4810: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4821: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 4921: Mr. Cisneros.

H.R. 4945: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4950: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 4982: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4989: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5068: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5235: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 5263: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5269: Ms. Pou and Mr. Edwards.

H.R. 5271: Ms. Ross, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Swalwell, and Mr.

Beyer.

H.R. 5282: Mr. Neguse and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5309: Ms. Pressley, Ms. McDonald Rivet, Ms. Pingree,

and Ms. Rivas.

H.R. 5387: Mr. Min.

H.R. 5390: Ms. Pou and Mr. Meeks.

H.R. 5415: Mr. Harrigan, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms.

Ross, and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 5434: Ms. Meng, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Soto, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5438: Mrs. Harshbarger and Mr. Perry.

H.R. 5461: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 5469: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 5509: Ms. Gillen, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Correa, and Mrs. Luna.

H.R. 5521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5543: Mr. Whitesides.

H.R. 5638: Mr. Begich.

H.R. 5641: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5767: Mr. Williams of Texas and Mr. Babin.

H.R. 5791: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 5835: Ms. Randall.

H.R. 5861: Mrs. Dingell.

H.R. 5867: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 5870: Mr. Obernolte.

H.R. 5910: Ms. Ansari.

H.R. 5934: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5939: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5940: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5951: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 5972: Mr. Cleaver.

H.R. 5983: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5993: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6006: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6020: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6056: Mr. Crow, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Sewell, and Mr.

Morelle.

H.R. 6093: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6099: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6108: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6109: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6110: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6111: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6119: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6121: Mr. Owens and Ms. Norton.

H.R. 6123: Ms. King-Hinds.

H.R. 6126: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6128: Mr. Soto.

H.R. 6130: Mr. Soto, Mr. Neguse, and Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 6152: Mr. Min.

H.R. 6164: Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6170: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6181: Mr. Bera, Ms. Balint, Mr. Torres of New York,

and Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6182: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6213: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 6219: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 6228: Mr. Garcia of California.

H.R. 6231: Mr. Murphy and Ms. Brownley.

H.R. 6245: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6259: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6261: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6268: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

H.R. 6293: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6366: Mr. Obernolte and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 6422: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 6425: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6432: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6434: Ms. McBride and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6436: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6440: Mr. Garcia of Illinois and Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 6444: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6448: Ms. Plaskett.

H.R. 6449: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6450: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6468: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6475: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6498: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6501: Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 6521: Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 6529: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 6541: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6543: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6546: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6547: Mr. Foster and Mr. Rose.

H.R. 6550: Mr. Rose, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6551: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6552: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6553: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6554: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6555: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6556: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6574: Mr. Goldman of New York, Ms. DelBene, Mr.

Subramanyam, Ms. Meng, Ms. Plaskett, Mrs. Dingell, Ms.

Pingree, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 6597: Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6608: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 6624: Mr. Gill of Texas and Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6670: Mr. Haridopolos and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6675: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 6677: Mr. Case.

H.R. 6678: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 6707: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia.

H.R. 6724: Mr. Mannion.

H.J. Res. 13: Ms. Bonamici.

H. Con. Res. 12: Mr. Dunn of Florida and Mr. Tran.

H. Con. Res. 64: Ms. Goodlander, Mr. Espaillat, and Ms.

Hoyle of Oregon.

H. Res. 297: Ms. Budzinski.

H. Res. 381: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 704: Mr. Thanedar.

H. Res. 733: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 843: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H. Res. 931: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 61 and H. Con. Res. 64, War Powers resolutions that direct President Trump to remove the U.S. military from hostilities in the Caribbean and against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

Since September 2, 2025, the Trump administration has conducted 25 military strikes on vessels in the Western Hemisphere, which they state to be carrying narcotics. At least 95 people have been killed in these strikes. Not one of these strikes has been authorized by Congress and I have publicly called for them to cease because I believe them to be unlawful extrajudicial killings.

The footage of the strike on September 2, 2025, which I have viewed in a classified setting, is deeply alarming and calls into question the Trump administration's respect for the laws of armed conflict. I have called on Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio to immediately release the strike video in its entirety, so that the American public understands what President Trump has ordered in the Caribbean without any authorization from Congress. Congress has a responsibility to fully investigate not only the September 2, 2025, strike but the Trump administration's entire operation in the Caribbean and should take testimony from Secretary Hegseth, U.S. Special Operations

Commander Admiral Frank Bradley, and retired U.S. Southern Commander Admiral Alvin Holsey.

Beyond these strikes, the Trump administration has spent months conducting a large-scale military buildup in the Caribbean but has completely failed to explain the rationale to Congress. A military posture that includes a carrier strike group is wildly disproportionate to the goal of prosecuting counter-narcotics missions. The financial costs of Operation Southern Spear are significant and will likely run into billions of dollars. Keeping a carrier strike group on station longer than planned will result in additional maintenance costs, as well as unforeseen accidents, as we just saw with the USS Harry Truman's high operational tempo while deployed in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that the Department of Defense has failed to provide the Appropriations Committee with a full account of operational costs in SOUTHCOM and a projection of what future costs may be incurred. Military units supporting Operation Southern Spear are incurring a different type of cost, lost time training for missions that they would have undertaken had they not been diverted to the President's unauthorized activities in SOUTHCOM.

President Trump has also made several public comments about the potential for U.S. military forces to be used to remove Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela. President Trump has even directed the seizure of oil tankers in the region to apply pressure in Venezuela. As a Member of Congress who voted against authorizing the disastrous Iraq War, I believe that a war to enact regime change in Venezuela would be a catastrophic decision. That is why these two war powers resolutions are so critically important,

President Trump and his administration are out of control. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and authorize military action. Because Congress has not done so in this case, the military activities directed by President Trump in SOUTHCOM are unlawful. Congress must prevent President Trump from dragging the United States into another disastrous regime change war that the American people do not support.

It is time for every Member of Congress to go on record and stand with the Constitution instead of President Trump's executive overreach. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these two war power resolutions.