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

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on this, the birth date of Dr. Martin Luther King, a man so great in the eyes of this country that we honor his birthday as a holiday, but it is more than a holiday. It is an opportunity for us to do some introspection, to examine some of the many things that are occurring within our country that should be addressed in a King-like fashion.

Dr. King had something that many other intellectuals of his time did not have. He was an intellectual. He had something that many of the persons who did speak up did not have; he had something called courage.

Many of the great intellectuals could expose and expound on some of the great issues of the time, but they didn't have the courage to take a stand, as Dr. King did, to go out into the public--into the streets, if you will--with protest--peaceful protest--to bring about a change in this country, and he did bring about a change.

So today, on his birthday, I want to honor Dr. King by speaking from one of his quotes. He had many quotes that are quite quotable, to be quite honest. It is difficult to single out just a few, but today I will mention a couple. But there is one that I will focus on, the third one. He, of course, is known for having said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Injustice in Minnesota is a threat to justice in every other State in the Union.

He didn't say that about Minnesota, but he was giving us the words to help us understand that what is happening in Minnesota, if it is an injustice, it can happen in your State. It can happen in Texas, my State. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' I think that is probably one of his most-quoted quotes.

But then he also had one that is not quoted too often. This one is one that people don't like to associate with Dr. King because it speaks to his militancy, in a sense, but it also speaks to things that people don't want us to do. We have a State that has as its motto Live Free or Die.

Well, it is all right for a State to have that, but Dr. King's quote was: ``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.''

A man, a person, who has not found something worth dying for isn't fit to live. Very few people will cite Dr. King for having said this. By the way, I paraphrase a lot of what I am saying in terms of his quotes.

``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.''

But the one that I would like to quote today and say much about is his quote that deals with the ultimate measure. ``The ultimate measure of a man . . . '' is the way he put it, but I will be paraphrasing.

The ultimate measure--the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort--comfort, when all of your bills are paid and you are living the high life--not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience--when everything is at your fingertips. You have at your fingertips all of the luxuries of life, all of the things that make life worth living.

The ultimate measure is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience, but, rather, where do you stand in times of challenge--challenge, when you have a reckless, ruthless, lawless President who is breaching the Constitution, who is doing things that we never expected to see in our lifetimes. Where do you stand when you have a President who is doing things within and without the country that we did not anticipate?

Dr. King says that the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy--controversy because what he is doing is being justified by many people who stand in the corridors of power. What he is doing is being justified by members of the clergy, who ordinarily would take the righteous stand. Where do you stand?

``The ultimate measure of a man. . . .'' Where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy?

Let's talk about this. Where do you stand when the President of the United States has replaced Congress with corporate America; when the President of the United States will consult corporate America before he consults Congress; and when the President of the United States goes into another country, Venezuela, bombs this country, and consults with corporate America but does not consult with the Congress of the United States of America? Where do you stand?

Well, here is where the Senate has taken a position. Here is where the Senate stands. Let's first read what the Senate has in S.J. Res. 90. This is a resolution brought before the Senate and has been voted on but was voted down.

Let's examine briefly an excerpt from the resolution.

The resolution reads: ``A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.''

Remember, this is the President, who consulted with corporate America but not the Congress of the United States of America. The Senate has this resolution, S.J. Res. 90.

It continues in the Findings. ``Congress makes the following findings.'' I will read a portion of one.

This is what Congress finds. This is the United States Senate: ``Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.''

Congress, the sole power to declare war.

It goes on to say: ``Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, Congress not having declared war, a President who has declared that he visited with corporate America before taking kinetic activity in Venezuela, where do we stand?

Well, the Members of the Senate, 50 of them, stood with this resolution. I would stand with them. I stand with them now, 50 of them who stood for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, 50 Members were antithetical to the resolution. When this occurs, the Vice President of the United States has a vote.

The Vice President of the United States voted with those who were antithetical to this resolution, S.J. Res. 90. You can research and pull up the entirety of it, and I beg that you would.

So where do you stand when the Senate of the United States of America cannot reclaim its power to declare war? And we ought to do it while we can. We are losing it.

The ultimate measure of the United States Senate--what is the ultimate measure of it when it has the opportunity to reclaim its power to declare war and it doesn't?

We are finding ourselves now with the National Guard being sent into various cities around the country, various States, without a request from the Governors, without a request from the mayors, without a request from the officials who are in a position to make that request, without a request from the people, we the people not making that request. I know that we the people don't make the request; the Governor makes the request. But the point is we the people put the Governor in place.

So we the people are not making the request by and through our official agent, Governors, but the President has decided he would do this. And he always concocts some fallacious, some fictitious means by which this should be done, and he does it. And, unfortunately, we have to ask: Where do the courts stand?

Some of the courts are yielding to the President's pressure. He has threatened judges. Where do we stand when the President is threatening judges? Where do we stand when the President has decided that there is no separation of powers, that he can determine when a judge is right or wrong and if that judge is wrong, that judge should be

impeached? Where do we stand when the Senate holds a hearing to discuss the impeachment of judges who differ with the President of the United States of America? It has been done. I saw it myself. Where do we stand?

Where do we stand when, after the President has sent the National Guard into various places, more turmoil has been committed as a result of the Guard being there than was being committed before they arrived? The President is the person who is creating the turmoil so that he can then say: I am justified in sending the National Guard.

Where do we stand when a woman seated in her vehicle, a woman, Ms. Renee Nicole Good, seated in her vehicle when she is approached by a member of the constabulary in a rather aggressive way--and I am being kind, because with that aggression was an insufficient amount of profanity, more than sufficient. It was really insufficient, not necessary, profanity.

Now, do we expect the constabulary to approach people and in this process swear at them, or do we expect them to be respectful, be respectful even when the person that the member of the constabulary is approaching is disrespectful? That is our job. We are to be respectful, notwithstanding the disrespect we have to suffer.

I was a judge. I remember having a man come before me in court and said some very unkind things with profanity. I could have held him in contempt. All I had to do was say: Mr. Bailiff, take this man over to a certain area and hold him until I finish the docket. I have to have a further discussion with him.

I could have held him in contempt, but I had heard enough of that case to know that he was right about the facts in the case; he was wrong in how he expressed himself. I never held that man in contempt. I had the black robe on. I had the power.

How you use power determines whether you are a person who should possess power, whether you are the person that should be armed with lethality such that you can change a person's family's history and remove a person from existence.

Where do we stand when officers approach a person such as Ms. Good was situated and when Ms. Good says to this person: Dude, in a sense, I am not mad at you. I am not mad at you. To the person approaching aggressively: I am not mad at you. And as she is saying these things-- it has been said that these were her last words--another officer comes across, near her, in front of her, and this officer with a video camera has his weapon just with him. This officer, as she turns away, shoots her and then, as she is passing by, shoots again.

I assume the first shot hit her. I don't know whether it did or didn't. That is my assumption, so I am saying that. But we do know this: There were additional shots fired as she passed by through her window--the window was not up; it was not elevated--through her window. We do know that she died. We do know because we have seen it.

Now, you can justify this if you would like, but you can't justify the Justice Department concluding that it would not cooperate with the local authorities with the investigation, not if you want transparency. Where do we stand when the Justice Department refuses to be transparent after we see what appears to be an injustice to many people? I am one of them. I believe that the killing of Ms. Renee Nicole Good was a grave, gross injustice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So where do we stand when this is happening? Where do we stand? Sent in armed persons, and they have now taken a life in a way that is quite questionable.

Well, where do we stand when the President now is saying that he is declaring martial law? Well, he is not declaring it currently. He is saying that he may have to, talking about martial law. He talked about that some time ago. Actually now he is talking about the Insurrection Act, the Insurrection Act. He is talking about the Insurrection Act. He has spoken of martial law on other occasions long ago, a while ago, but now the Insurrection Act. So that means he is going to send in the military, if he does it, and then the next thing after that could be martial law.

So are we going to just stand by and witness the President replace Congress with corporate America, decide that he will send in the National Guard, send it in to cities across the country without a request from the Governor of the State? When he decides that he is going to talk about now the Insurrection Act as his next tool, National Guard already in, using the Insurrection Act, bring in the military, the only thing left is martial law. He hasn't said that he will resort to martial law at this time, but I want to say this: I have been trying to warn you. I have been trying to warn the American people that this President is moving us toward a dictatorship. I was among the very first, if not the first, to say publicly that this was an authoritarian, among the first to say it. It is difficult to be a part of the avant-garde when you are trying to warn powerful people about something that is taking place.

I have been trying to warn you. I say it is difficult because Voltaire was right. It is dangerous to be right in affairs where established men are wrong. It is dangerous to be right. It is dangerous to be right when the establishment in this country refuses to acknowledge what is taking place.

Thank God for people associated with free speech for people. Thank God for the impeach and removal coalition, people who are willing to be a part of the avant-garde, who are willing to take the proper stand when they see democracy at risk, when they see the President absolutely disregarding the separation of powers, absolutely disregarding the fact that the judiciary has the authority to render opinions about circumstances that have been brought before the judiciary.

There are some people who are standing up. I am proud to say that, here in the Congress of the United States of America, there are people who are taking a stand against this President's unconstitutional behavior. They are taking a stand.

I am proud to tell you that many Articles of Impeachment have been filed since the first was filed. Many have been filed, and I am on every one of them.

December 9, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles.

December 10, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles.

January 14, a stand was taken. I am on these Articles of Impeachment.

I do not require people to stand with me when I take a stand, because I sincerely believe, as I have said here at this microphone many times, on some issues it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I don't lead by telling people you have to follow me. No, I am an example. If you think I am a good example, then you can embrace the example.

I am not out whipping people for votes. I am not going to demand that people do something that I think is appropriate. I lead by example, and I try to be a good example. I am not always a good example, so no one should claim that I claim perfection because I do not.

I do claim this: On these issues related to the Constitution, I refuse to stand by and see what is happening in my country as it devolves into what I perceive as a dictatorship. I refuse to stand by and see that and say nothing.

The truest and the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience when you have all of these things happening that I have cited, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy when these things are happening--not when all is right with the world, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy.

Do you stand with the President who is behaving in an unlawful fashion as it relates to the Constitution, or do you stand with the Constitution? Do you stand with the Constitution of the United States of America?

This is where we Members of Congress now have to make a decision. Are we going to stand with the reckless, ruthless, lawless President, or are we going to stand with the Constitution of the United States of America?

I am proud to tell you that when we filed the last Articles of Impeachment--and I have filed many. I plan to file more, just for edification purposes. I will say more about that at a later time.

When the last Articles of Impeachment were filed, it was H. Res. 939. With these Articles of Impeachment, there was a vote. I believe that we ought to take a stand. We ought to take a stand. These are times of challenge and controversy. We were elected to take a stand in times of challenge and controversy.

Yes, I know that it can put my career at risk. There are people trying to get me out of office, and they are doing a pretty good job. I never know what my next day will bring.

I do know this: I will have my record show that I fought all the way out. I didn't come to stay forever, but I did come to make a difference while here on the great issues of our time.

Where do we stand? On H. Res. 939, 140 persons voted for H. Res. 939, 140 Members of Congress, not one from the other side of the aisle--140, Members who hold high positions. I am not calling anybody out.

As a result, we have identified all of them in this document. This is my copy. But all 140 Members who voted for H. Res. 939 will receive a similar copy, and their names are all listed. Each person's name is going to be highlighted one time, and that one time will be the time that we will acknowledge this person as being in the document by highlighting the name. That will be given to that person. Each person will have his or her name highlighted on the page when no other names are highlighted but that one person's.

It is important now for me to read a bit from H. Res. 939. It reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.''

I have to pause a minute and say this. The President said just recently that ``they will find a reason to impeach me.'' Mr. President, we don't have to find a reason. You are giving reasons. You are providing reasons on a daily basis almost. I said ``almost.''

On a daily basis, you are providing reasons for people to file Articles of Impeachment against you. The question is not whether the reasons are there. You are providing them. The question is, Mr. President, will we have the courage to bring you to justice?

This is the bar of justice for you, Mr. President. You will be brought before this bar of justice, the House of Representatives, where impeachment is the indictment that will bring you to justice.

So, it reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.''

It goes on to read: ``Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of Presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence''--and he has a done a job--I almost said ``a good job,'' but I hate to use ``good'' in this context. He has ``engender[ed] invidious hate, undermine[d] our democracy, and dissolve[d] our Republic, that he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.''

They were first exhibited to the House. The House took a vote. One hundred forty persons voted for the impeachment. We had another 47, I believe, who chose to vote ``present.''

For these 140, I have the courage to present to you this document in this fine piece of cover that has a very soft texture to it. We will present this to you. I want to read what it says above the patriotic 140.

It reads: Patriotism means to stand.

Where do you stand in times of challenging controversy? Remember Dr. King.

Patriotism means to stand by the country in times of challenging controversy.

That is what patriotism means: Stand by the country. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

Dr. King, today we honor your profound words in the ultimate measure of the man. As it was said at that time, the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience but where does a person stand in times of challenge and controversy.

The answer is from Theodore Roosevelt. I am a bipartisan guy. The answer is: Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

This is Dr. King's birthday. I thought it most appropriate to pay tribute to the 140 patriotic Americans who took a stand.

For those who have concluded that there will not be impeachment: You are wrong.

It is the only solution available to prevent the next Donald Trump, the next would-be, from assuming the position that this Donald Trump has taken and imposed the kinds of horrific atrocities on society that this Donald Trump is the imposing.

We need to impeach right here and send it over to the Senate. The Senate would have a trial. Impeach, convict--conviction takes place in the Senate--and remove. The Senate has the power to do this. This is the solution.

I understand that the network television programs, for the most part--there are some exceptions, but for the most part, they stand with Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not want to be impeached. He as much as said so, and the networks don't want him impeached. They have said so. I have listened to many persons associated with the networks, and they said so. They don't want to see impeachment.

I differ with them. By the way, when you differ with them, they won't let you say that. This is a free-speech country when people will allow you to speak broadly on their networks. So they are not going to let you do that. You won't see me on CNN. You won't see me on MSNBC, but you will hear from me here as long as I am allowed to speak because I just believe in speaking truth about power, not just speak truth to power, but speak truth about power.

Speak truth to power, you say: Power, there is a problem. Let's solve it.

Speak truth about power, you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it.

That is just as I did from that seat right over to my right when the President was up at that podium and I told him he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

The networks are a status quo institution for the most part. They want to maintain things as they are. I am not a status quo Representative. I want to see change, positive change, change that can make a difference in the lives of people.

I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if we don't speak up, stand up, and meet the ultimate measure of the person that Dr. King calls to our attention, it may be too late at some point within the next 3 years for us to do so. Because this President is showing us that he intends to become a dictator. To a certain extent, he is already, to a limited extent, a dictator.

So we have to take back our power to declare war while we can before it is too late. We have got to take back the authority in the Constitution to have a separation of powers while we can before it is too late. We have got to stand up to this President.

Dr. King, that is what you would have us do. I believe you would have us take a stand.

I believe that Dr. King would not sit silently by and witness what has taken place now and do it without taking a stand.

Not everybody has to take a stand to impeach. Some people decided that they would peacefully protest. I am a peaceful protester. I will stand by people who peacefully protest. I will not stand by people who do not peacefully protest. If you introduce violence, then you just lost me. I am not with you. It doesn't matter who you are, I am not with you.

The ultimate measure of the person in times of challenge and controversy is with the Constitution of the United States of America. That is where I am, and that is where I stand. I assure you as I stand here, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we who believe that Dr. King should be commemorated ought to commemorate his life respectfully.

There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by engaging in peaceful protest. There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by

standing on the authority vested in the Constitution of the United States of America which is imparted to us. The words are without us they just become words. We give meaning to the Constitution.

So there is nothing wrong with taking that stand. Stand on the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. King, I know that is what you would have us do.

That is what I encourage others to do.

I assure you, Dr. King, I am going to bring additional Articles of Impeachment to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise, a liberated, unbought, unbossed, unafraid Democrat.

And still I rise, and I rise today because I have grave and great concern for the American people. I fear for the lives of the American people.

I do so, Mr. Speaker, because if the President of the United States and his underlings and his persons who are in charge of very powerful agencies within the Federal Government can convince this country or some significant portion of the people in this country that Ms. Renee Good was a terrorist, I fear for the lives of the people in this country.

In fact, I fear for my own life. I am not afraid to speak truth to power. I am not afraid to speak truth about power. I am going to speak truth about power today, but I can tell you that I fear for our lives because if you can justify what happened to Ms. Good after seeing with your very own eyes what took place, and if we can allow the king's men to conclude that only they can investigate this and remove the local constabulary from the process, if this can happen, I fear for our lives.

We are now living in a country where people are expected to believe that this mother of three, a Christian woman, seated in her vehicle-- yes, the vehicle was across the roadway--that somehow she was a terrorist. The head of Homeland Security has as much as said so, a terrorist.

Mr. Speaker, I fear for our lives because what we saw when this lady, this woman, was accosted--and I say ``accosted'' because men who had on masks in police regalia, I suppose, approached her rather aggressively, it seems to me, and one of them, in approaching, said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' I am not using the profanity, but that is what was said.

You can see it for yourselves, and you can hear it for yourselves. That is what was said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' When men can approach a female in a car and say this to her and expect her to immediately respond in a positive manner, and if she does not and attempts to drive away, if they can take her life, I fear for our lives.

Do not assume that it can happen only to her. They aggressively approached her. Cars were going around her in various ways, but when she made her move to extricate herself, to move along, to move her car, officers started to shoot. She was shot. One officer shot through the side window as she was moving away.

You don't have to know this lady. I don't know her. I don't know who she was other than what I have seen and what I have read, but the truth is, officers ought not be allowed to do what was done to this lady. There should be an investigation that includes the local constabulary.

If you truly want to be transparent, if you truly believe in liberty and justice for all, if you want the people in this country to believe that what occurred was the right thing, then you would want the local constabulary to be involved, but no. This administration is shutting out the local investigation, and they are including only the Federal investigation, which means, by some thought processes, that they have no desire to let this go to trial.

There are people who believe that this administration has no desire to let this case go to a trial. For edification purposes, I am one of them. I don't believe that they want this case to go to a trial.

I think that this is why they have decided that only the Federal authorities will investigate. I also believe that if the case goes to a trial and if there is

a conviction and it is a Federal conviction, I believe this President will do for the person or persons convicted, I believe he will do for them what he did for the people who assaulted the citadel of democracy on January 6. I believe he will pardon, and I believe he will do it without question, reservation, or hesitation, just as he did for those persons who assaulted this Capitol. He did it immediately after being sworn in.

Mr. Speaker, I fear for the lives of the American people, and again, I say that includes me. I think we have a reckless, ruthless outlaw who has found his way into the Presidency.

To further validate my thinking, I have here the words of the President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump. Here are his words when asked if there were any limits on his international power. I know what happened within the country was national. This deals with international power. Give me just a moment, please, of your time so that I might connect these dots.

When asked if there were any limits on his international power, here is his response: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.'' Some things bear repeating: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.''

Mr. President, what about Congress? What about the Constitution? What about the power to declare war and where that power is vested? What about it, Mr. President? Only your mind? Only your morality?

I won't go into the President's moral standards. I will leave that to you.

Mr. Speaker, what the President is saying is, this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 90, over in the Senate--here is a copy of it--permit me to read some excerpts.

Mr. Speaker, it reads: ``Joint Resolution--To direct the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.''

S.J. Res. 90, it goes on to say: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives.''

Eventually, if it passes the Senate, it has to come to the House for our approval.

``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

``Section 1. Findings. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause II of the United States Constitution.''

Mr. President, the Constitution still has some relevancy. The Constitution is not meaningless.

It goes on to say: ``(2) Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force within or against Venezuela.''

Mr. Speaker, it is only his mind and his morality. That is the only thing that can stop him. This resolution won't stop him.

Here is what he knows. He knows that if it passes the Senate and he knows that if it passes the House, he knows that he has a vote. He knows that if he votes ``no'' with his veto, he knows or believes that it will not be overridden.

Mr. Speaker, I still say this is the right thing to do. I say this because you cannot allow a President to do what he has done in terms of going to another country, bombing the country, to do this and not put some check on him. At least you have to try. You can't just allow it to happen and decide we will wait until we can override his veto.

Pass it in the Senate even if it never passes the House. You ought to pass it in the Senate. The House should pass it. If the House doesn't, the Senate is doing the right thing. Pass it. Let him know that there are some people who are watching.

By the way, the President has also gone on to say that the five Republicans who voted for this to move forward shouldn't hold public office again. Threats and intimidation, this President spells the word ``respect'' f-e-a-r. That is respect. He wants people to fear him.

I don't fear you, Mr. President. I am concerned about your behavior. I am concerned about what you might have your underlings in some way do to me. I want you to know I will not be deterred, just as these Senators are not being deterred. Yes, they are doing the right thing, notwithstanding the fact that you have a vote in this process. They did it, and they are doing it. I support what they are doing.

In doing what he has done, the President is doing the following. He is using the noble ends--not always noble--to justify ignoble means. They are noble ends to justify ignoble means. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Only it is noble ends to justify unconstitutional means.

I think some Senators seem to agree with me on that: Unconstitutional means to justify what are perceived to be ignoble ends. The President of Venezuela is a part of this, but it is not about him. It is about the Constitution. It is about whether we will have a Constitution.

If we are going to allow what are perceived to be noble ends to justify unconstitutional means, at some point the Constitution of the United States of America will become meaningless. He is using noble, perceived ends to justify unconstitutional means.

The President should have brought this to the attention of the Congress. He did not do so. He did, however, bring it to the attention of the oil companies. Have the oil companies replaced Congress in the United States of America? Is what they think more important than what we think, given that the Constitution has given us the authority to declare war?

I know that this is a difficult topic for some people to embrace, but this is where we are. Congress has become irrelevant in the mind of this President. It is not relevant. It is not. His own morality, his own mind is the only thing that can stop him.

Well, Mr. President, you are wrong. Congress is relevant. Just as the Senate took this action, Congress, meaning the House of Representatives, should take action. By definition, the House and the Senate make up the Congress. The House of Representatives should take action. We have the power to do what has to be done. We have the power. Before I go further with that power, I want to come back to, if I may, Ms. Good.

If the President believes this about international law, if the President believes that the only thing is his mind, I believe he believes the same thing about domestic law. I think he believes that the only thing that he has to concern himself with is whether he agrees, whether he thinks it is right.

I believe he thinks that what those officers did can be justified simply because they are officers of the law. I support officers of the law. I don't support outlaws who are pretending to be officers of the law when they are committing crimes.

My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I support officers of the law, but I am not going to support officers who would do what happened to this lady and the President is then going to immediately back them up. The head of Homeland Security immediately backs them up. The Vice President of the United States immediately backs them up.

They set the narrative to allow the exoneration of the persons who did these dastardly things. They have put in motion immediately without an investigation.

Well, you say: Al, you didn't investigate.

No, but I am investigating by virtue of seeing what happened and having read news articles and having looked into it. They didn't do as much. They just immediately concluded that this lady was a terrorist.

I am not a terrorist, but if you can conclude that she is, I am not sure that anybody is safe from being captioned, labeled, or designated a terrorist. I am not sure.

I am standing up for her today. I am standing up for the American people today. I am standing up for those good law enforcement officers who would have approached that lady with a kinder gesture and not as bullies. They would have approached her and simply said: Ma'am, would you please step out of the car.

What is wrong with being kind? You have got the gun. What is wrong with being respectful? No, the President as a bully has passed on his tendencies to those who are under him. It starts at the top. The tone and tenor starts at

the top. It starts with a bullying President.

Now, you have officers who believe that they can bully people into doing things. I imagine this lady was frightened. I would have been, rushing up to me, mask on, ``Get out of the f'ing car.'' That may have been the last thing I would want to do. It may have been the last thing she wanted to do.

The President, in his thinking, believes he is above and beyond the law, whether it is international law or whether it is domestic law. That is his thinking.

I come back to where I was when I said the Senate is doing the right thing, and they are. I said the House should do the right thing, and we can.

The President fears what the House can do. He fears it because he knows that this is where an indictment can take place, right here in this House. He knows it. He knows that that indictment can be very harmful to him, very harmful to him.

He is afraid of what the House can do. He has as much as said it without using those explicit words. He said it. He has said it. He said that they will find some reason to impeach him, find some reason.

Mr. President, it is easy to find the reasons because you have given them to us. Venezuela is a reason. We don't have to look very far or very hard to find a reason. It is right before our eyes. The reasons are there. It is not about whether we can find the reasons. The question is whether we can find the will. It is the will. Do we have the willpower to do what should be done?

I am talking about bipartisan effort. It should be bipartisan. But if it can't be bipartisan, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop this reckless, ruthless President.

If the Senate can go forward knowing the rules and how things are likely to play out, if we can pass legislation here just yesterday that I supported going over to the Senate--there is a good likelihood that their behavior is not going to be acceptable to me. If we can do this, we can also do the same thing with the one thing that can stop a reckless, ruthless, outlaw President, the one thing. That one thing, my friends, is what the President fears most. He fears even having votes on it take place.

There are people who will say: ``Well, if you can't pass it, why vote on it?'' Because the American people need to know that there are some people who see the wrong and who are willing to take a stand against the wrong. They see the injustice, and they are willing to take a stand against the injustice, even when that stand may not result in what is the desired end. A noble end, a noble cause, ought not be avoided simply because you can't bring it to fruition today. It ought not be.

Yes, this thing that we can do is almost sacred. Yes, it requires considerable thought. Yes, it is something that we should do when we have the evidence. Well, friends, I guess the evidence is comparable to the evidence that we had on January 6 when we saw it before our very eyes. After all, this is an indictment here. The trial will take place in the Senate.

There is this one thing that he fears, and he is very much concerned about it and what we will do.

I can't speak for anybody else. I don't speak for any of my colleagues who are in Congress. I don't speak for anybody outside of Congress. I speak for one person, so do not now say that the Democrats are doing something. Just say Al Green. Tell the truth.

On some issues, I believe that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all, so I am going to take a stand. I am going to agree with what the Senate has said. By the way, I would invite you to read all of it because there is much more to it than what I read to you.

I agree with what the Senate has said when they said that Congress has the power to declare war. They go on to say Congress has not yet declared war. You had no right, under the Constitution, to do what you did, but you do have the right to do it if the standard is your mind and your morality.

We should not assume that this applies only to international affairs. It applies to domestic affairs as well. I am going to do what the Senate has done, as best as I can, but it will just be me. It is not the Democratic Party.

I believe that these are votes of conscience. Let your conscience be your guide, Members. Don't follow my lead, Members. Don't do it because I am doing it. I don't think that there are very many who would. Do it because you believe. If you don't believe, do not do it.

I am not asking anybody to vote for it when I bring it to the attention of Congress. I am not asking you to. Don't vote for it if your convictions don't command that you do so. Do what you think is right.

The Senate has done what they believe to be correct, and I assure you--without question, I assure you of this--I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States of America for taking our military to war against Venezuela, for doing it based upon some theory that in and of itself does not align with the Constitution, some theory that if you have an indictment, you can now send in the police or the Justice Department and various officers associated, you can send them in to do something--in this case, to seize the President of a country--and use the military to back them up.

I marvel at how people will say: ``Well, they did it in Panama. If we did it in Panama, we can do it here.'' God, the list is endless of things that have been done that were wrong that at some point we had to stop. It was wrong to bring folks to this country in chains. They thought it was lawful at the time, I suppose, in their minds, but we stopped it.

Regardless as to what has happened prior to this second in time, I say to you the Constitution still rules. The Constitution is above indictments. The Constitution is above the things that are in the mind of a President that he believes would give him the authority to do these things. It is the Constitution that counts.

If you are going to have a Constitution, you have to make it count. It doesn't count because the words are on paper. It is how we react and behave in response to the words that are on paper. It is the Constitution that counts.

An indictment is no constitutional reason to send the military, to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, to send planes in large numbers, or to send other military paraphernalia. Indictments don't accord you that, Mr. President.

The only way we can stop this is with impeachment because that is the only thing. Why is it impeachment? Because, friends, it would say to the next Donald John Trump we will not tolerate unconstitutional means that are justified. You can't decide that you are going to use some sort of means-justifies-the-ends theory to go to war. He needs to be impeached. He needs to be convicted, and he needs to be removed from office; impeached, convicted, and removed.

However, if we can't do it now, that doesn't mean that the process can't start now. If we can't do it now or sometime in the near future, it doesn't mean that we should not let the American people know that we know that what has been done is wrong. We should protect the Constitution, not allow this to happen. The only way we can do it-- while I believe that this is good and I support it, S.J. Res. 90. I support it. I believe it is good; but the real remedy, the remedy that can make the difference is to impeach, convict, and remove Donald John Trump from the Presidency.

Friends, this is where I stand. I don't do these things to make friends. I do them because I care about my country. I do it because I believe it when I salute the flag in liberty and justice for all. I do it because I believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people, and that includes the people who have the authority to enforce the Constitution. We are the people. We are the ``we'' in we the people. I believe we have to do whatever we can when we can, and this is something I can do, and I will do.

By the way, those who say: Well, you are just taking up time. We take up more time in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. We took up more time just recently in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. It

doesn't take up the time that prevents us from doing other things.

All of these things that people will say now in terms of why we can't do it, when we get the opportunity to by their standards, they will push all of these things aside and move forward. Well, I will be there with you. I am not asking you to be here with me, but I will be there with you. I will be there because it is the country, it is the Constitution, and it is the Republic that we must protect.

I promise you, friends, I will not be deterred. There is no need, not that anybody would, but there is no need to try and dissuade me. What happened in Venezuela was an act of war. The President doesn't have the authority to do that without consulting with the Congress. The Congress may very well conclude that you shouldn't do it. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to take over Venezuela. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to do this to provide the oil companies with greater revenues. Maybe the Congress has a different point of view. Your point of view is but one. The Congress has the right to have its point of view recognized as well. I must--others can do what they may. I must take this stand. I will take this stand.

This President will face Articles of Impeachment for his declaration of war based on his moral standards and his mind, based upon what he thinks he can do without congressional input. I will take a stand. I will bring the Articles of Impeachment.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from the further consideration of S.J. Res. 90, to direct the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.

Mr. President, I will begin I think a few hours of floor speeches on S.J. Res. 90, and I appreciate the work of Leader Thune and Leader Schumer in scheduling this matter for a vote today at 5 o'clock. I view it as a very important one.

The act that I just read, the International Security Assistance and Arms Control Export Act, is an act that allows a single Senator to file a privileged motion that can be heard on the floor of the Senate without intervening committee action under a simple majority threshold to address the most serious question that this body ever has to grapple with--the question of war.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1974, and it has a set of provisions in it. Those provisions include Presidential notification of Congress when there are military actions undertaken that meet the definition of ``hostilities'' within the act. And the President has notified us. President Trump, like other Presidents, has provided notice of military actions.

The particular statute allows this motion to be heard on the floor in a privileged status if two threshold questions are met: first, that there is no congressional authorization covering a proposed military action, and second, that military action is either ongoing or imminent, such that the motion should be heard.

The framers, in 1974, of this act clearly intended that Congress should be able to have a vote and debate on this matter even before the initiation of war so that Congress could be in a position to stop it before it begins.

So what I am offering, together with my cosponsors Senators Schiff and Paul, is this resolution to try to make plain what the Constitution makes plain, and that is, no war without Congress. We should not be in a war without Congress.

I have had the opportunity, as have some of my colleagues, to go into the classified facility here in the Senate and review the legal authorization document that the Trump administration has presented recently to the Senate concerning the military strikes against boats in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Now, I reviewed that in the SCIF, so I can't talk about the content of it. I would encourage all of my colleagues to go review it, because I basically believe there are three critical errors in that: one, a mistaken philosophy of Executive war powers that derives from a misquotation of constitutional-era documents that the Framers were using as they grappled with war powers questions; two, a domestic legal rationale for when the President can unilaterally wage war that is completely contrary to the Constitution; and three, an international legal rationale that I think most of the Members of this body would find to be quite a stretch if they review it.

But the one thing I can say is something that isn't in the document, and so I am not in any danger of revealing classified information. What is not in the document that is available for Senators to review is any--any--legal rationale that would suggest that U.S. military action against the sovereign nation of Venezuela or any sovereign nation is covered by the legal rationale in that document.

Just this morning, there has been public press suggesting that even the President recognizes that there is no legal rationale for such military action, again, absent congressional authorization.

Why are we bringing this to the floor? We are bringing it to the floor because of a set of actions. We have already discussed, in a resolution that was filed by my colleague Senator Schiff, a couple of weeks back, where we had a vote, the increased pace of military operations in the Caribbean and the Pacific, near Venezuela, and the justification that the White House has used for those often references to Venezuela.

So there is an ongoing and increasing pace of strikes against boats that are killing dozens of individuals. But with respect to additional actions that are specifically focused on Venezuela that enable this resolution to meet the imminence test under the War Powers Resolution, on October 15, 2025, President Trump confirms that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela.

Now, it is highly unusual for a President to publicly announce that he has authorized covert action. It almost immediately makes it noncovert once the President has announced it. But that has been widely, publicly disseminated, that the President has authorized covert action in Venezuela.

The next day, October 16, the President says, ``We are certainly looking at land now,'' signifying the land invasion of Venezuela.

On October 24, there were multiple public reports--and this is underway--that the Pentagon has sent the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to U.S. SOUTHCOM to be positioned in and around Venezuela. You don't need a Ford-class carrier to interdict small drug boats. That is not what you use a carrier for. That direction of the Ford, which includes many Virginians who are positioned on the Ford, to SOUTHCOM is specifically to have it there, arrayed nearby Venezuela, in the event the President decides to start a war there.

Finally, on October 31, public reporting shows that many Trump administration officials have told the press that a secret list of targets in Venezuela has been drawn up. All of this, together with the increased pace of strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, suggests that we are on the verge of something that should not happen without a debate and vote in Congress before the American people.

This is an indication of the current assets that are massed around Venezuela, the U.S. ships and aircraft massing off Venezuela. And this comes from a Washington Post report of November 1, 2025. The Gerald R. Ford, the largest and most modern aircraft carrier in the world, built at the Newport News shipyard in Virginia, is the lead. But the mass of other ships and submarines and special operations vehicles and aircraft platforms, both manned and unmanned, is significant.

Currently, about 10 percent of the U.S. Navy is arrayed around Venezuela. They have been pulled from every other theater in the world to array around Venezuela. This poses some significant risks to U.S. sailors.

Venezuela has very high-end weaponry that they have acquired from U.S. adversaries, primarily Russia and Iran, that could do significant damage to these U.S. assets and to our sailors and troops that are on these assets, particularly if Venezuela were to misread the impressions or the strategy of the United States or were there to be some kind of miscommunication. It would not at all be outside of historical precedent for Venezuela to use its own weapons if it believed it was subject to imminent attack, and that would pose the U.S. troops connected to these multiple platforms to significant danger. And that is what we should avoid.

Mr. President, here is my belief. There may be Members in this body who believe that we should be at war with Venezuela, just as there may be Members in this body who believe we should be at war with narcotraffickers in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And there is a simple solution for that which is consistent with the Constitution, and that solution is for U.S. Senators to draft up an authorization for use of military force and have the backbone to put their own names on it, if they believe a war is a good idea.

But the Framers of the Constitution firmly believed that we should not be at war--we should not be risking our troops who are on all these platforms right now, their life and their health--we should not be risking them without a debate and a vote in Congress. The Framers took this position in such an unusual way in 1787.

In all the other countries around the world, the ones they were familiar with, the initiation of war was a matter for the Executive. But the Framers of the Constitution--as I said before, even with George Washington as the President, a great military leader whom they revered--they said a decision about war is too important to put in the hands of one person. Thus, the initiation of war should be for the article I legislative branch, not the article II executive branch. That has been consistent constitutional language that is very unique.

Most nations still put the decisions about war in the hands of the Executive, not the legislative branch. I have been a stickler about this, whether the President has been a Democrat or Republican.

Interestingly enough, this issue came up yesterday, right across the street, in the Supreme Court, as the Court was hearing oral arguments on the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case dealing with the question of whether tariffs could be imposed under the IEEPA statute that we spent some time discussing on the floor. The Solicitor General of the United States, Attorney Sauer, is not only the Nation's chief advocate before the Supreme Court; he was Donald Trump's personal lawyer. This is an individual who is very close to the President, both personally and now in a professional capacity. And he was making the argument that Congress had delegated a clear congressional power--the power to post tariffs, the power to tax--to the Executive.

One of the Justices, Donald Trump's appointee, Justice Gorsuch, was pressing on the question of whether Congress really can delegate specific congressional powers to the Executive or not. On page 68 of the transcript of the oral argument in the case, Justice Gorsuch was pressing this Solicitor General, Donald Trump's personal attorney:

What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can

hand off the power to declare war to the President?

The Solicitor General said:

Well, we don't contend that. Again, that would be . . . an

abdication, not a delegation.

I stand here to urge my colleagues--and I have done this often during by 12\1/2\ years in the Senate--not to abdicate. Don't abdicate the power to declare war. Of all the powers given to the article I branch, this is the one that should be most jealously guarded.

The reason the Framers put this decision in the hands of Congress was because of a belief that we should not risk the lives of our servicemembers unless there is a clear political consensus, as expressed by a vote in Congress, that the mission is worth it. If Congress is not willing to have a debate and say that the mission is worth it, then it is the height of--I would sort of call it--public immorality to nevertheless require people who are serving to risk their lives and their health.

The people who volunteer for the military volunteer knowing that it is going to be dangerous. They do sign up for that. But they ought to know, if they are ordered into a mission that involves military action, that there is a political consensus by the elected leadership of the country that that mission is worth it. And absent a debate and vote in Congress, we are ordering people to potentially risk their lives without having the courage ourselves to sign our name to that mission.

So I stand here with my cosponsors, Senator Schiff and Senator Paul, to say we shouldn't be at war without Congress. Even President Trump, by public reporting today, suggests that he may not yet think he has a legal rationale for a war against Venezuela.

Let's not abdicate. Let's not abdicate the most important power we have. I would hope that all my colleagues--whatever they think about the virtues or vices of a war against Venezuela--would at least stand strong for the proposition that Congress should have the power and, indeed, the responsibility to have a debate and have a vote on it before we ordered our troops to risk their lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise for the closing comments about S.J. Res. 90. My colleague and friend from Idaho talked about strikes on boats. That is not what this is about. This is about the prospect, openly discussed by the President, for a land invasion of the sovereign nation of Venezuela. The President has not asserted a legal rationale for it. The documents that we read in the classified facility talk about a legal rationale for strikes in international waters but, specifically, do not contain a legal rationale for striking a sovereign nation.

This is not about President Trump. It is about the Constitution, and it is about Congress. Do we take seriously the most important responsibility in article I, that wars should not be declared without Congress?

Venezuela is a nation of 30 million people. They have a very capable military because they purchased weapons from our adversaries, like Russia and Iran. The massing of U.S. forces around Venezuela poses series risk of a miscommunication or a use of those weapons against Americans.

I might remind my colleagues that the United States attacked Grenada in 1983. Grenada was an island with a population of less than 100,000. Nineteen American soldiers died in that attack. One hundred fifty-two American soldiers were wounded in that attack. Twenty-four civilians who were at a mental hospital that was bombed by accident were killed in that attack.

An attack against a population poorly armed, without weapons, of 113,000 people caused 19 soldiers to lose their lives and 152 to be injured.

A Venezuela of 30 million people is a completely different kind of military operation, and we would not expect it to go perfectly because none ever go perfectly.

How will you respond to an American family who loses the life of a child or whose child is injured in the event of a war against Venezuela, when they ask you: Why did you not even think it was important enough to have a debate and vote in the U.S. Senate? Why did you let this President--why would you let any President--make that decision on his or her own without you even weighing in?

I will close with this. I have stood on this floor and made this same argument when the President is a Democrat. It happened often during President Obama's term, and I made the same argument against unilateral Executive war when the President was a Democrat, as I am now making when the President is a Republican.

I believe, as I stand here today, if these same facts were applying strikes on boats, massing of warships, the President saying he has authorized covert action, the President saying he has looked at land targets, and that President was Joe Biden or Barack Obama--I believe I would have many Republicans voting with me on this resolution, not because they don't like President Biden or President Obama but because they would take this responsibility, no war without Congress, that we pledge an oath to because it is in the Constitution we pledge an oath to--they would take it seriously.

I urge you to take this as seriously as you would take it if the President were a Democrat. It shouldn't matter. We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress. The lives of our troops are at stake. Respect them and their families, and please vote yes on the resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is time that instead of closing the government down further, we begin to open up government.

What I will offer is legislation that instead of closing government down further, begins to pay those who are working. It pays our soldiers, pays our air traffic controllers, pays everyone who is showing up for work. I think this should become a permanent feature of our government.

I think it is disruptive, I think it is unfair, and I think it is wrong that we don't pay the workers that show up. A better way than isolating different groups and punishing different groups is actually to pay those who are working. I think, if we do this, pass this legislation, this would never be a problem again.

We are going to run into disagreements in the future. We are going to have times when the government shuts down. There is no reason we shouldn't be paying our government workers.

I ask the Senator to modify his request, so, instead, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 3012; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think it is actually not clear at all that the President wouldn't sign a bill to continue paying Federal workers. I think it is actually a universal sentiment among both parties and among the American people, particularly among the soldiers, that we ought to continue to pay the soldiers and continue to pay the workers.

I am, perhaps, the most conservative Member of the Senate. I vote to cut spending on everything--I think we spend way too much--but I am not for cutting the salaries of people who have a contract and who are doing their work. Now, I probably would not hire new people, and I would probably let the Federal Government shrink gradually through attrition because I think we need to be smaller, but if you work for the government and you are doing your job and you have a contract, I think you ought to be paid.

So I don't think it is clear that the President wouldn't support this. I think it is actually quite confusing that this is being objected to by the Democrats, and I think, actually, it would be nice to let the Democrats, you know, have a round at this and explain to us why they don't want to pay the air traffic controllers.

Look, we can have a dispute over spending. I think the Republican proposal spends too much, and I think the Democrat proposal spends too much, but I think we ought to pay the workers while we are working out the debate over what the spending level ought to be.

I think it is actually an untenable position of Democrats to come before

this body and say: Oh, we want to give subsidies to people who make $225,000 a year. That is what they are arguing for. The ObamaCare subsidies are not the basic subsidies. These are add-on subsidies that started 2 years ago. If you make $100,000 a year, the Democrats want to give you $13,000. Meanwhile, people who make $20,000 and are on food stamps are not going to get food stamps, but somebody making $100,000 is going to get $13,000. That doesn't sound like the Democrats are for the working class or for the poor. It sounds like the Democrats are for the people making $200,000 a year to get a subsidy.

But in the midst of all this, with pressure, I think the Democrats could be made to understand and support paying the government workers. I mean, I just think it is something eminently reasonable, and I think it is something very passable. I don't see the President objecting to this. I think the President would sign this in a heartbeat.

So I object.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think the answer is to pay more people and not fewer people and to try to get through shutdowns without having people go without pay who are doing their jobs.

Now, the proposal was made, and I just simply made a proposal that would pay everybody. So the Senator from Louisiana has objected to paying everyone, and I don't quite understand this. We could pay everyone. We could have paid everyone had he agreed to my motion. My motion was to pay everyone--to pay the soldiers; to pay the air traffic controllers; to pay the staff; to pay everybody who is working. Yet there was an objection. So I don't understand what is going on here.

Should the emphasis be to pay fewer people or more people? Why would we try to punish certain groups of people instead of paying all of the people who are working? Why would we not do that?

So I don't understand the process we have gone through here. We just had a chance to pay all of the people. We had a chance to pay the air traffic controllers; we had a chance to pay the soldiers; we had a chance to pay all of the government workers--and then there was an objection. So I don't understand what we are going through here.

I, for one, believe that the workers should be paid. I, for one, believe that we should fix this permanently. The bill that I have presented is not just to pay them one time; it is to pay all workers all the time who are under contract and who show up for work whether there is a shutdown or not. It is a permanent payday for those who do their jobs. That was the fix. It is not a niche bill. It is not to punish one group or the other group. It is to say, if you are working and there is a disagreement on the spending levels, that all workers are paid. I don't understand the objection, and I will continue to support paying all the workers all the time they are at work whether there is a shutdown or not.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for decades, the globalists in Washington have led our country into one disastrous foreign war after another. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same: Proclaim that the regime of the targeted country poses such a threat to the American way of life that the only thing we can do is go to war. Tell them that our intervention is a noble effort, one that would bring security at home and liberty to foreign lands. Topple the government and declare a new age of freedom. The warmongers have recycled these experiments in regime change again and again. And what has it brought? Instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect a different result. We should learn from history. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bad act. The United States maintains the most formidable military in human history. Of course, we have the capability of overthrowing the Maduro regime, just like we had the power to overthrow Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi.

But what comes next? Is anyone thinking about the potential blowback that such a campaign could entail? Overthrowing the Maduro regime risks creating more regional instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that the very drug cartels the administration is ostensibly trying to destroy could exploit.

Just as our misguided interventions in the Middle East led to the proliferation of terrorist organizations, this could happen in Venezuela, but this time with the proliferation of organized crime. We could swell the ranks of the cartels with new recruits. Remember what happened in Iraq, the de-Baathification of Iraq. Removing all of the previous government soldiers, they had no place to go. They were used to being paid, they wanted money, and they went and worked and became terrorists.

Where do you think the tens of thousands of Venezuelan soldiers and desperate civilians will turn when their livelihood suddenly disappears? It may be the drug cartels. In its hubris, Washington may very well empower the cartels and make the drug problem in our hemisphere worse. Certainly, any war will exacerbate the already precarious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and lead to mass migration into neighboring countries already struggling under the strain of millions of refugees. And rest assured, many of those who flee the disaster of the war that will come will make their way to the United States.

Most consequentially, any military operation comes with the risk that American servicemembers will be killed or wounded. We owe it to our servicemembers to only send them into harm's way when vital American interests are at stake. Who is in charge of Venezuela does not constitute such an interest.

We have seen chaos emerge from our misguided wars before. We overthrew Saddam Hussein thinking Iraq will be transformed into this great Jeffersonian democracy. Instead, what occurred was an insurgency that led to some of the most brutal sectarian violence in living memory. Washington's foolish invasion empowered radical jihadists and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS, which posed a much greater threat to Americans than Saddam Hussein ever did.

A similar story unfolded in Libya. In 2011, our forces aided the rebels to oust Muammar Qadhafi. The result was a brutal 6-year war that saw the proliferation of jihadist groups and widespread human rights violations, including the resurgence of slavery. Weapons were spread throughout Africa. Our intervention helped spur mass migration into Europe and contributed to widespread instability across Africa as weapons flowed from Libya into the Sahel and Sub-Sahara, where they continued to fuel conflicts and terrorism to this day.

Libya is still highly unstable, and the conflict constantly threatens to reignite. Like Saddam and Qadhafi, Maduro is unmistakably a dictator. He

is a bad guy. He suppresses freedom of speech. He controls his people. There is no free voting. He treats people poorly, and that is an understatement.

But there are a lot of bad guys in the world. There are a lot of dictators. There is a lot of socialism leading to starvation. It doesn't mean that the United States should carelessly risk its blood and treasure to go and topple every one of them. As we have seen all too well in recent decades, foreign military interventions often end up making things worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Imagine the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard? With over 10,000 U.S. troops, 8 warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and dozens of F-35s already in the Caribbean, the USS Gerald Ford strike group surging toward the region, the stage for folly is set. We are told that only drug dealers are the target of U.S. operations, but the consolidation of the largest U.S. force in the Caribbean in 35 years suggests that regime change may very well be the intended goal.

The use of lethal force and our massive military buildup is an invitation to retaliation. Attacked countries often attack back. It is our soldiers in the field of battle--not the Senators on this floor-- who will bear the brunt of the retaliation. By then, the time for debate will have passed. The Senate will have once again excused itself from the responsibility of governing, and the United States will once again be at war.

Those who argue that small boats in the Caribbean are so dangerous that they warrant being blown out of the water must explain why, when some of the individuals happen to survive, they are not detained. The drugs are not scooped up and tested. The survivors are simply sent back to their country of origin. Wouldn't we ask whom they work for? Wouldn't we detain them? Wouldn't we present evidence to a court and say what should be done with these survivors? We summarily shoot them when we don't know who they are. But once we pick them up, we don't summarily kill them. We don't even try them.

The United States has now repatriated two survivors to Colombia and Ecuador. If, as we are told, these groups constitute a threat to our security equal to al-Qaida, that they are somehow narcoterrorists, then why are we allowing these individuals to go home? The truth is that these arguments are nonsensical. Drug traffickers aren't equivalent to al-Qaida, and the executive branch does not have the authority to kill at will anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

Repatriating survivors of the strikes suggest that the administration's lawyers are not so confident that their arguments about article II authority will survive legal scrutiny--or perhaps they are not confident that they could even bring drug convictions in a court.

In addition to the strategic malpractice of pursuing regime change in Venezuela, there is also the inconvenient fact that the President simply does not have the authority to unilaterally launch wars. The Founders had the foresight to recognize that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war, and they therefore made it clear in the Constitution that Congress maintains the exclusive power to declare war.

Part of President Trump's broad appeal was his strong contempt for the neocons on the right and the liberal internationalists on the left who never met a war they didn't want someone else's children to fight. He rightfully criticized those in Washington who supported nation- building fantasies throughout the Middle East; yet now certain individuals within the administration seek to lead the President astray.

I would advise President Trump to remember the wise words of his inaugural address, when President Trump said:

[W]e will measure our success by the wars we never get

into.

President Trump, do not allow the warmongers in Washington to drag you into an unnecessary war of choice. Washington has spent decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives trying to remake other countries in our image. The American people are sick and tired of their elected representatives in Congress standing idly by saying: Nothing to see here; the President can do whatever he wants, while their sons and daughters are sent to fight wars in distant lands.

As the administration authorizes covert CIA action in Venezuela and surges U.S. forces to the region, including our most advanced aircraft carrier, the risk of imminent involvement in hostilities is evident.

It is time that the first branch of government puts America first. The majority party of this institution should stand by the principles of restraint as espoused by President Trump's promise to the American people. Honor and statesmanship should prevent the Senate from sitting idly by while elements within his administration blunder America into another foreign war. The American soldiers, their families, and the American people deserve a debate and a vote before we send our Armed Forces into war.

If you agree that our soldiers and their families deserve at least this much, vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. President, this weekend, I watched, probably like you, a number of folks go on television and confidently predict that we were going to be out of the shutdown. Some said as early as Wednesday. One confidently predicted Thursday. A couple more said Friday. So when I came back on Monday, I was pretty sanguine about things.

It gives me no joy to say this, but I was wrong. I don't know. As bad as this multiple-vehicle pileup looks from the outside, you ought to see it from the inside. I know you know what I am talking about, Mr. President. The Republicans have voted 14 times to come out of the shutdown. My Democrat friends have voted 14 times to stay shut down. I think it is going to be like that for a while.

I used to have a beagle. I loved him to death. His name was Roger. He was a rascal. Roger would run off. He was a rabbit dog that we picked up as a stray. Roger would run off for 3 days and scare me to death. I was afraid he was going to die. After 3 days, he would come staggering back home, and he always had roadkill in his mouth. He would hide that roadkill under my back porch. Where we are now, in negotiating out of the shutdown, looks like something Roger used to hide under my back porch.

We are supposed to have a vote tomorrow. We don't know what we are voting on, but we have been promised we are going to have a vote. I hope we do. And I hope we are wrong, and I hope we come out of this shutdown very soon. But I am not going to lie to the

American people. I think we are going to be in it for a while.

Now, as everyone knows, folks aren't being paid while we are in a shutdown. Our air traffic controllers are not being paid. In fact, starting tomorrow, the airlines are going to be canceling flights. Our staffs are not being paid. Federal employees are not being paid. These young men and women here, our pages, are not being paid. Our military is only being partially paid.

I am confused about SNAP payments. Some say the payments are being made; some say they aren't. I don't know who is telling the truth. But I do know this: I don't think anybody wants to see anybody hungry in America.

The only people that I can ascertain who are being paid are Members of Congress. I am not being paid. I said I wasn't going to take a salary during the shutdown. Some of my colleagues are, and I am not judging anybody. My purpose is not to judge anybody. I am just saying that it is time that Congress set an example.

I have two bills I am going to offer up today. The first one is called the No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act. This just says that while we are in a shutdown, Members of Congress don't get paid and they don't get backpay.

The second bill is entitled Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act. That bill says that while we are in a shutdown, Members of Congress don't get paid, but they will get paid. They will get their money in arrears after we open the government back up.

I am rather fond of the Constitution, as most people are. I am well aware of the 27th amendment which says:

No law, varying the compensation for the service of the

Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an

election of Representatives shall have intervened.

What that means, of course, is you can't change the pay for a Congressman until after you have had an election.

I think my bills are constitutional for two reasons. No. 1, we are not changing the rate of compensation. We are just saying: You are in a shutdown; you are not going to get your money.

No. 2, there is precedent for this. Back in 2013, President Obama had Congress pass the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. President Obama's bill said: Look, Congress is about to go into a shutdown. Fine, have at it. Knock yourselves out. Go into a shutdown. But if you don't come out of that shutdown by this particular date, you are not going to get paid.

And do you know what? Members of Congress had an epiphany. They had a Damascene moment. They were born again. They got out of the shutdown in time to be paid.

I am not trying to put down anybody. I am not trying to condemn folks who have been taking their salary. I am not saying they don't earn every bit of it. But I am saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I want to offer up these two bills for the Members' consideration, starting with my first bill, which would say Members of Congress can't be paid and don't get backpay even after we end the shutdown. That is called the No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, that bill which I just described, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I will not, Mr. President.

I would like to explain why.

I understand Senator Paul is making a good point. What he is saying is, rather than saying, as I am, that nobody else is being paid so Members of Congress shouldn't be paid--I think what Senator Paul is saying is let's pay everybody. That is what I understand him to be saying. He wants me to agree to that instead of my bill.

What Senator Paul is proposing is Senator Ron Johnson's ``no shutdown'' act that we voted on several times. I am for it. I voted for it several times.

Here is the problem I have with Senator Paul's proposal, pulling down my bill and going with Senator Johnson's bill--several reasons. No. 1, I am interested in passing something. I am not interested in just putting on a show. My bill will pass the House of Representatives, and my bill will be signed by the President.

Senator Paul's bill, I can assure you, will not pass the House of Representatives, and President Trump will not sign it. I am not saying someone is right or somebody is wrong. President Trump does not consider Senator Paul to be part of his MAGA agenda, and he will veto it. Then we are right back to square one.

So, for that reason, I can't substitute his for mine because his is going to be as dead as fried chicken here in a few days, and mine has a chance to pass.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Now, Mr. President, I need some clarification, a parliamentary inquiry, if you will: Do I understand that Senator Paul has objected to my bill; is that correct?

And his modification, if I might ask, is to substitute his bill for mine?

OK. I have said I will not substitute his bill for mine.

Mr. President, may I ask for a clarification?

I have offered a bill to say that Congress does not get paid like everybody else who is not being paid during a shutdown. There has been a little bit of a back-and-forth.

As I understand it, Senator Paul has objected to that bill; is that correct?

To my bill to say Congress isn't paid during a shutdown; is that correct?

Mr. President, I want to bring up my second bill. It is called the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act.

Remember, my first bill that Senator Paul objected to would have said Members of Congress don't get paid, just like our staffs don't get paid, just like air traffic controllers don't get paid, just like the military doesn't get paid. We don't get paid until the shutdown is lifted, and we don't get our money in arrears. In other words, we don't recoup our money once the shutdown is lifted. Perhaps Senator Paul will find my second bill to be more palatable to him and his pocketbook.

The Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act would say, while we are in a shutdown and everyone else is not being paid, Congress would not be paid but that Members of Congress--including Senator Paul, including me, including all Members of Congress--would have the right to get the money back, to be paid, after they are out of the shutdown. In other words, the money would be escrowed, and they would get it once we were to come out of the shutdown.

Again, there is precedent for that, and I talked about what President Obama did back in 2013. For that reason, I am going to ask unanimous consent on that one.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3057 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, a point of clarification: Has Senator Paul objected to my bill or does he want me to modify it?

Mr. President, I am not done yet. Maybe I wasn't clear. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

I support Rand's bill. It is actually Ron Johnson's bill, but I support his idea.

What I am saying is, if everybody over here isn't being paid, Members of Congress shouldn't be paid, OK? What Rand is saying--what Senator Paul is saying--is let's pay everybody, and he is absolutely right. I support that, but I am going to pass on it.

I am going to pass on it, Senator Durbin. We live in the real world, and my bill is more likely to pass the House and more likely to be signed by the President than Senator Paul's bill. I wish that weren't the case, but it is. I don't think that the House is going to pass Senator Paul's bill. I don't think it is any secret. I am not saying he is right or wrong, but President Trump does not consider Senator Paul to be part of the MAGA agenda. He said that. He has tweeted it about a skillion times.

Am I wrong, Senator Durbin?

I mean, he has tweeted it about a skillion times, and he is going to veto Senator Paul's bill because his name is on it. He is going to knock it to Uranus. He is going to knock it into a new ZIP Code.

Then what have Rand and I done? We have put on a pretty performance. I want to pass something. Now, I have tried to pass my bill preventing Members of Congress from being paid, and you can pretty it up all you want to, but Rand objected. And I am not judging him. I am not judging anybody who is taking their salary. I am not taking mine, but I am not judging anybody. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and you either think Members of Congress ought to be treated like everybody else or you don't. You either think that we are more important and smarter and more virtuous than the American people or you don't, and I think we ought to be treated the same.

Now, having said that, I said I agreed with what Senator Paul said. I am just worried his name on the bill is going to get knocked out of the park, so I am going to put it in my name. It is not Senator Paul's bill; it is Senator Ron Johnson's bill, and what Ron John's--we call him Ron John. I am sorry. He is Senator Ron Johnson from the wonderful State of Wisconsin.

What Senator Johnson has proposed--and I voted for it repeatedly-- says: Look, if you are deemed an essential employee right now, if you are working but you are not being paid, Senator Johnson's bill says we are going to pay you. I voted for that. It also says, if you are furloughed, if you are deemed to be nonessential, then you are not working, but you will get paid once we come out of this shutdown.

Does that make sense? That is what Senator Ron Johnson has proposed.

As I told my good friend Senator Paul, I agree with it. Senator Paul's name is on that bill, and it is going to be vetoed six ways to Sunday. I am going to try to put my name on the bill. Maybe it will get passed, and maybe it won't, but I think I have a better chance than Senator Paul. That is just my personal opinion. It is not meant to be personal.

For that reason, Mr. President, I will try it a third way. It is not my preferred way, but we have got to get out of this mess.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 3012. As I have indicated, I think we have got a chance to pass it in the House, and I really don't think President Trump will veto it if I explain to him it is Senator Ron Johnson's bill. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, look, I get it. You know, this is why we are in a shutdown.

I just proposed a bill--this was my third choice, but it was better than nothing--to say everybody gets paid, and my good friend from Washington State objected.

I don't know what else to do. I voted 14 times to open up the government.

I can't change the election. President Trump was duly elected President of the United States--he was--in a free election, and the American people spoke. Some of my colleagues are upset about that. In fact, they hate the President so much, they have shut down government. They hate him so much that, if President Trump came out in favor of breathing to live, they would hold their breath. It is not rational.

I just don't know what else to do. All I can tell my Democratic friends is: Look, reasonable people disagree, and I get it. But you are just being too emotional. You need to go drink a big ole, cold, tall glass of ``get over it'' and realize that President Trump is the President of the United States. Don't shut the government down because of it.

Mr. President, you have been really patient. Even though the Parliamentarian tried to get you to dodge my questions, you answered them straight up, and I really appreciate it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.