Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 1099) reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very simple. It is reaffirming that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Why is Iran the largest state sponsor of terrorism? Why is that something that is said? Why must we reaffirm this?

It is because they have spent the last 47 years targeting and attacking the United States of America every single chance that they have.

In April of 2025, Houthi terrorists attacked the USS Harry Truman, causing a U.S. fighter jet to sink into the ocean.

In June of 2025, Iran-backed militias attacked at least three U.S. bases in Syria and two bases in Iraq.

In January of 2024, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed three U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 more in a drone attack against tower 22 at a military base in Jordan.

Before that, Iran-backed militias wounded three U.S. servicemembers in an attack at Erbil Air Base in Iraq.

Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7 massacre.

Just prior to that, President Biden unfroze $6 billion of Iranian assets. That doesn't make them the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but I just thought it is an interesting point to put into the timeline.

Before that, an Iranian drone attack killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor in a drone strike on a coalition base in Syria.

Before that, an IRGC captain orchestrated the killing of an American citizen in Baghdad.

Before that, an Iranian rocket attack killed an American citizen in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Before that, Iran-backed militias wounded two U.S. servicemembers in a series of rocket and drone attacks against U.S. Forces in Iraq and Syria.

Before that, an Iran-backed militia fired a rocket at coalition forces in Erbil, Iraq, wounding a U.S. servicemember and four U.S. civilian contractors.

Before that, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. servicemembers in a rocket attack at K-1 Air Base, Kirkuk, Iraq.

Before that, Iran held 10 U.S. Navy sailors at gunpoint, on their knees, on the deck of an Iranian boat.

Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed an American citizen and his wife in a drive-by shooting.

Before that, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed two American citizens serving in the IDF.

The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, pages and pages of Iran killing Americans.

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

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

I thank my colleague across the aisle for the agreement that we have on this. To quote my colleague just now: There is no dispute that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terror.

He may not expect me to agree on this, but I would also agree with him on this point: There is absolutely nothing that this resolution is going to do to protect any American or any American servicemember, nor any previous piece of paper, strongly worded letter, or anything else that this body has done that has been successful in protecting America from the largest state sponsor of terror. It is only two actions: number one, President Trump putting Qasem Soleimani into about five separate pieces on the side of an Iraqi tarmac; and, number two, the actions that President Trump has taken in this operation to destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch an American or has reached out and touched an American. Those are the only two things that will protect America from this imminent, ongoing, and undisputed threat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is Florida day. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond to some of these comments as well. My colleague has said things that we agree on: Iran is a bad actor, and Iran is a state sponsor of terror. He said that there is no dispute about these things.

My colleague has also said that he will vote for the upcoming War Powers Resolution. There is not a resolution that is coming before us that gives the President any authority or authorizes the military to defend the United States of America in any way, shape, or form against that threat that there is no dispute about, that bad actor, as it was characterized, that state sponsor of terror that everybody agrees on.

There is no War Powers Resolution coming that says: Go out there, and under these parameters, defend the United States of America.

President Trump is utilizing his Article II authority, his constitutional Article II authority, to defend the United States of America against that imminent threat that we agree upon.

What my colleagues ask is that the President do nothing to defend the United States of America.

My colleague talked about this resolution that outlines all of these historical actions and that we affirm Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror. It does nothing. He acknowledges he has voted on resolutions just like that many times. That is true. Nothing has happened until we have President Trump willing to utilize his Article II authority to defend the United States of America against an imminent threat.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror. Apparently, many of our colleagues have forgotten that they have voted on that, have forgotten that that is the case, have forgotten that that is the enemy that comes against us, and have forgotten that they pose that imminent threat against us every single day utilizing every single opportunity that they can to attack Americans.

I will close with this, Mr. Speaker: I thank President Trump for the first time avenging every single American who has been killed by the hand of Iran. That was not the purpose of this operation, but it is the purpose of my personal thanks.

Thank you, President Trump, for avenging every servicemember who was killed by the hand of Iran, every contractor, every civilian who has been harmed throughout the Middle East, and every person wrongfully detained.

For every single person killed by that hand of Iran, I thank you, President Trump, for finally stepping up and defending the United States of America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of March 3, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration exhausted every single diplomatic effort that they could with Iran, as did previous administrations. Iran would not see reason. Operation Epic Fury is a legal and necessary exercise of Article II authority to address the imminent threat posed by Iran.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about choices. Defending yourself is a choice. It is a choice that not everybody makes. Some people, instead of defending themselves, curl up into a corner and cry and turn their eyes. Some people stand up and step into the fight and make the tough choice of going through the battles that it takes to defend yourself.

I will thank, again, President Trump for defending America from an imminent threat, an imminent threat that no other President has had the guts to stand up to.

What is that imminent threat? What was that imminent threat that President Trump is doing his duty, his constitutional duty, his Article II authority to defend America against?

I will tell you it is something that almost every single Member of Congress has literally agreed upon up until President Trump decided to defend America.

Previously, almost every Member of Congress voted to call Iran the largest state sponsor of terror, and tomorrow we will cast a vote on what was just debated about reaffirming that they are the largest state sponsor of terror.

Nearly all Members unanimously voted to condemn their continuous funding of terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. What does that mean? It means they give them money. They give them weapons. They give them training. They give them direction on where to find and how to kill Americans, and then they reward them for doing that. Almost every Member of Congress has voted unanimously to condemn that.

It was almost a unanimous vote calling their nuclear program a massive threat to the United States of America. My colleague over there voted in the affirmative on that. Almost every one of us voted to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

Those votes didn't just happen for no reason. We have seen Iran as an imminent threat against America, not just for the last 4 days, not just for the last 4 months, or 4 years, but for the last 40 years.

Why do they continue to be an imminent threat? Because they have never faced an imminent response until President Trump. Instead, we told them--when I say ``we,'' I could say America, but really it was my Democrat colleagues that told them this. They told them how much uranium they could enrich instead of they can't do it, period. We told them when they could have a nuclear weapon instead of no. On top of that--again, I say ``we'' because it is America, but it was really my Democrat colleagues--gave them pallets of cash. That is a fact.

I especially, as many of my other colleagues, wouldn't take this away from anybody here. No one wants to see our military go into ``combat,'' ``war,'' ``conduct combat operations,'' ``battle,'' or whatever word somebody wants to use to describe it. I do not want to see conflicts end in casualties.

I wear many names on my wrist of friends that I have lost, but Iran's terror, which has caused the death of thousands of Americans, has to stop. They don't warn us when they are going to kill Americans. They are an imminent threat. They look for a surprise. They look for an opportunity, any weakness, any moment that they can go out there and attack us. They are an imminent threat. There has proven no other way to stop this imminent threat, not by negotiation, not by accord, and not by summit.

Let us talk about this imminent threat. Three U.S. soldiers killed at Tower 22 a year and a half ago: Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett, and Sergeant Rivers. This is an imminent threat. Countless civilian vessels targeted by Iranian drones. That is what an imminent threat looks like.

This one just pisses me off beyond belief. Ten U.S. Navy sailors captured and held on their knees at gunpoint by the Iranian Navy. This is an imminent threat.

The October 7 attack, killing 1,200 civilians, including 46 Americans, was supported by Iran. Again, that is an imminent threat.

This is very personal to me. Iran's killing of an estimated one in six American servicemembers in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. That is an imminent threat.

Beyond that, U.S. fighter jets lost, sunk off one of our carriers in the Red Sea because of Houthi attacks. That is an imminent threat. If you ask an American whether they want war or combat--you can ask me that question. I would say no. I don't want it. I have been in it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want it for my children. We do want the President to stop Iran's imminent threats.

If I asked if anyone wants combat, anybody with sense would say no.

What do people want us to do if there are 10 American Navy men and women put on their knees at gunpoint by Iran? They want us to take care of that. Do they want us to go into combat? No, they do not.

What do people want us to do if there are three American servicemembers killed at Tower 22 by that imminent threat? They want us to take care of that. This is what taking care of that looks like.

President Trump has been clear, consistent, and transparent. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. He made every effort to address this through diplomatic means.

Let me quote directly from a resolution that Democrats, including my colleagues, overwhelmingly supported: ``The House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States . . . to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.''

Leader Jeffries voted on it. Ranking Member Meeks voted on it. Speaker Emerita Pelosi voted on it. Did they not believe it when they voted on it? Did they not read it? Did they not understand ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon''?

We all know Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States. The only difference now is that President Trump is sitting in office.

Right now, our military is shooting down Iranian missiles and drones that are targeting Americans in the region. If Democrats had their way and this

resolution passed, they would force the United States military to pack up, stop shooting down missiles, and tell every American sheltering in place and every ally fighting against this regime that America is no longer there to help.

While this does not fit the narrative of my Democrat colleagues, President Trump had the authority to get the job done under Article II of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

He has been transparent with this Congress. Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and CIA Director Ratcliffe have all conducted now three specific briefs, making our objective clear: destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch Americans or has been used to reach out and touch Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot there. I didn't hear any discussion of Article II authority. I heard a lot of reminiscing, but I didn't hear any reminiscing about Libya either.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I heard one of the craziest things from my colleague just a couple of minutes ago: That if something has been going on for 40 years, it can't be imminent. It can't meet the definition of imminent if it has been going on for 40 years. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

If every day I walk out of my house and get my tail kicked by somebody, that is the exact definition of imminent. It will happen tomorrow and the next day until I finally step up, grow a spine, and prevent it from happening. It is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have three quick points.

Number one, it is Article II of the Constitution that gives the President the authority to defend us against the imminent threat of Iran.

I would say that if the Iran nuclear deal was so masterful, why didn't they bring it before Congress and before the Senate?

The final point that I would make is this: Again, last Congress, 354 Members of Congress, including 150 Democrats and Speaker Emerita Pelosi, who just spoke, all voted ``to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' That was their vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge not supporting this resolution. I am thankful that my colleague at least started to talk about that there is an Article II authority. He actually discussed that.

When is something an emergency?

That is what a real debate can be. I have laid out very clearly a number of reasons why I believe it is a national emergency and why I believe that threat is imminent because of a number of things that have happened. My colleagues over there say that something can't be imminent if it has been going on for years. To me that would be the definition of imminent if it is ongoing for years.

At least my colleague was willing to have that debate, although I disagree with him and urge not passing his legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why not to trust what was just said as the gentleman walks out. Here is what he voted for: ``Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners.'' That is literally what he voted for. ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' To me, that seems pretty damn imminent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker just said she was worried about Iran's uranium stockpile and that it could be used at any time. That seems pretty damn imminent to me, too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman about to speak on the other side, Mr. Raskin, also voted to say Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners and to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He must have thought it was pretty damn imminent, too.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard it brought up many times that we get to vote to declare war. We do, but it is enshrined in the Constitution that the President gets to defend the United States of America because of national emergencies.

These kinds of emergencies that the last gentleman voted to say to ``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,'' that seems like an emergency to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's poke a few holes in the Intelligence Committee ranking member's story here.

``At an ebb.'' They have been knocking jets off of our aircraft carriers. They have been attacking in places like Syria and Iraq. They killed three U.S. servicemembers at Tower 22 in Jordan, but he can say that it is at an ebb.

Let's poke one more hole in this. As ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, he did not vote to say that Iran's ongoing nuclear escalation poses a serious threat to the United States and its partners. That seems like an odd thing that the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee wouldn't vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve again, I would just invite the previous speaker to explain. If Iran posed an emergency, an existential threat to America, I would be happy to hear it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the same comments about Venezuela. There has been no forever war there, and that did bring peace and stability to the Venezuelan people. I guess we are proving the previous comments wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the next speaker as well, it would appear, voted to say: ``Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' He clearly thought that there was a pretty damn imminent threat going on there, but I look forward to hearing the remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I figured something out. If my colleagues keep saying that 4 days is forever, then maybe that is why they can't talk about what imminent threat means. They can't figure out the definition of these things.

Imminent threat, I have done pretty well to define what makes Iran a imminent threat. They don't want to speak about that. They don't even want to acknowledge it a little bit that, hey, maybe there is even a little chance that Iran could attack us this day. They don't even want to acknowledge it the slightest bit. They want to paint it as though it is just black and white, no shot whatsoever, no threat at all coming from Iran, even though they voted for things to say: Use all means necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

It is amazing to me, even though they have difficulty defining other words as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended with: ``This is serious.''

This is serious. It is more serious than when my colleagues can't even acknowledge a hint of an emergency, a hint of imminence related to the threat of Iran--there is nothing to see there--even though last Congress so many of them voted, including Ranking Member Meeks, to say use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Why would they say ``all means necessary''? I guess it is because a year ago they believed it to be that imminent, that important.

It was said by the ranking member, their bill doesn't prevent the U.S. from defending ourselves. It literally does. Let me read the text for you: `` . . . directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war . . . `'

That means the President cannot go out there and defend the United States of America. It is saying the President has no Article II authority to go out there and defend the United States of America. That is literally what they are saying.

He said our hostilities must stop, but I can promise you, the hostilities of Iran will not stop, have never stopped until the United States of America makes this decision to stop them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump for having the courage, the strength, and the resolve to stop the imminent threat of Iran from attacking the United States of America as they have week after week, year after year for the last 47 years. It is the very definition of imminent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 38 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion, except for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, 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, we are about to have a debate apparently for about an hour. We are going to have that debate for one reason and one reason alone. Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, refuse to recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the United States of America.

Whether on our northern border, on our southern border, through the Caribbean, or other places, they refuse to recognize that threat anywhere. Specific to the debate today, they would like to end an executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our northern border.

Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis and that it is killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each and every year. They are trying to literally end that executive order that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada. Even Canada acknowledges that they have this as a national emergency.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to correct from that diatribe I just heard. I am going to start to go through some of that.

Number one, who will pay the price? That was a question begged by my colleague. Who will pay the price? It is a very sad thing to have been asked this by my colleague.

It is important to remember what this resolution is. This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl. I would say to the gentleman over here that 5,000 people a year die in his State alone from fentanyl.

If he wants to beg the question of who is going to pay the price for him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them, who is going to pay the price? It is going to be 5,000 more of his State's residents. That is who is going to pay the price.

I think the gentleman next to me mentioned as well, when he goes home, this is what he sees when he goes home. When he goes home each and every year, because they don't want to address fentanyl, they are going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with fentanyl.

He said it himself. He sees no emergency. The ``so-called emergency'' were the exact words used, the so-called emergency. There is no emergency that exists, to quote my colleague. If 5,000 people were dying in my State every single year from one thing and one thing alone, I think that is an emergency. His people will pay the price.

Let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it is not. It is not a debate about tariffs. We can talk about those, but that is not really what it is. This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis. Again, they just ignored it. They just literally said it doesn't exist.

I will read again directly from the bill: `` . . . the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 1, 2025, in Executive Order 14193 . . . is hereby terminated.''

That is their language. They are terminating the executive order, and it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border.

It matters to talk about that it is the northern border. Why? That is because my Democratic colleagues don't believe that there is a crisis there, but my Democratic colleagues don't believe there is a fentanyl crisis under any circumstance. Any fentanyl that flows into the country, they don't see any of it as a national emergency.

We have yet to find a place where Democrats say that drugs are a national emergency. They made it clear that there is not one single circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to fentanyl as a crisis. They don't see that anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, let's look again at my colleague's own State. This is a report. Last report, almost 5,000 deaths, or just under that.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in Canada. Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down because of the pressure that President Trump is putting on Canada? It was 30 miles from the New York border. They didn't close it down 2 years ago or 3 years ago. Why not? It was because Canada didn't have the pressure put on them to do so. That is not a coincidence.

Mr. Speaker, again, do you know who is going to pay the price for taking the pressure off of Canada? It is going to be

the constituents of my colleague, where 5,000 people a year die from fentanyl overdose. If I were him, I would think that is a pretty big emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over the course of 20 years. Our country took that extremely seriously for every single one of them. Mr. Meeks' State is losing double that from fentanyl alone every single year, and he says that he sees no emergency. That is sad for the people of New York.

The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat fentanyl, while my Democratic colleagues are willing to do everything that they can to have those deaths continue. They don't support striking drug boats. We know that much. They don't support removing cartel leaders. We know that. Apparently, they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges that they have a drug trafficking crisis but weren't doing anything to fix it.

I am going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this as well: Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said that it needed to be eradicated. That is the Prime Minister of Canada, or former Prime Minister.

It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar, who admitted that they underestimated--Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl crisis and what it had taken, and they literally called it, according to the Canadian fentanyl czar, a national security threat.

The northern border, for whom this emergency exists, is acknowledging that there is an emergency, a national security threat, but I guess my colleagues think that they know better.

Mr. Speaker, take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being shut down, or one of them being shut down, of many. There was over 800 pounds of fentanyl confiscated. Why is it being shut down now and not before? It is being shut down now because the administration had the stones to put economic pressure on them, but my colleagues want to take that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in their State.

It is simple. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you care about the U.S. Government responding to millions of Americans being killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that. Even our northern partner acknowledges that.

The truth is that Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking down on drugs. They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs. They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols, but they have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them.

Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters, and millions of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors, like Canada, to act. It is saving lives.

My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his State are dying every single year. That is pretty sad. That is where the price is paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague, Mr. Issa, I would ask my colleague--I am happy to yield a moment--would you like to say 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency?

Crickets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.

Do you want to answer?

I gave you my speculation. It might have been making room for Maduro.

We didn't have that talk, but he might be making room for Maduro.

I asked you a question. Would you like to say 5,000 deaths are an emergency in New York?

Can we engage in a colloquy? Is that something we can do?

Mr. Speaker, then, in this colloquy, I would present the opportunity again: Would my colleague like to deny or admit that 5,000 deaths in New York related to fentanyl is an emergency?

Much of it did. Would you like to hear some stats?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I guess you need to direct your--

You have to direct your remarks to the Speaker.

I would point to just Canada, number one. Canada, in the last year, had an additional 8,000 fentanyl-related arrests because they finally started cracking down on it. There was an increase of 80 percent that was seized at the U.S.-Canada border because of the actions taking place, so, yes, there were deaths going on in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to end this colloquy and reclaim my time.

I note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been given for my colleague, who represents New York, to just say 5,000 fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency. Silence, crickets, no response, because the death of 5,000 of his constituents apparently means nothing to him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Issa for his remarks, and I believe there will be another Representative from California speaking on the other side. I will be curious if that Representative will acknowledge the thousands of deaths from fentanyl in California being an emergency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague know that just one-- because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths--one 70- pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in New York City. Again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that this is about fentanyl, because that is literally what the executive order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his State is an emergency, certainly in 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me we are talking about the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, and somebody is talking about wine. We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and my colleagues are talking about wine. Let's get some perspective here.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should educate themselves on what these tariffs are affecting. They are third-party goods coming in from countries like China. I don't think they are growing much coffee in Canada. They might want to look at the map and look at the temperatures and where these items grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top Democrat. It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we speak accurately.

Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis. Number two, every single item that they like to talk about on tariffs and Canada are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada.

It is very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of Representatives, that you know what you are talking about. It is especially important as the number two person on the Foreign Affairs Committee that you know what you are talking about when you talk about tariffs.

There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy or food or grain or fertilizer. The list goes on and on. They mentioned coffee I don't know how many times.

The only things that there are tariffs on are things that are coming in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the United States of America. If it is grown in Canada, there is not a tariff on it. It is very important that my colleagues know that and recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they are in.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what this is about.

My colleagues say there is no emergency. In fact, my colleague Mr. Meeks said that if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an emergency, then vote. Those were his words.

I think the only person on that side who might be able to change the mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is, again, unwilling to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his State from fentanyl alone in 1 year is an emergency. He is unwilling to acknowledge it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the remainder of my time here, about 1 minute, and give my colleague the opportunity one last time to correct the record for his New Yorkers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths aren't an emergency?

Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths are an emergency? Five thousand deaths in his State in 1 year from fentanyl-- preventable. The President is doing everything he can to stop it with drug boats, with the Caribbean, with the northern border, with the southern border. Crickets. You could hear a pin drop in here. Not a word from them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or its designee; that all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution be waived; that the joint resolution be considered as read; that all points of order against the provisions in the joint resolution be waived; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designee.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act. Its purpose is singular. It is of the highest importance to honor fallen law enforcement officers and first responders.

This bill, this medal, came to be in this way on November 21, 2024, because my community lost three Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputies in one moment: Deputy Ralph ``Butch'' Waller, Deputy Ignacio ``Dan'' Diaz, and Deputy Luis Paez. They were three motorcycle officers, all killed.

At their memorial service to honor them, President Trump, myself, and a few of our friends, Eric and Dan, we were having a conversation that there is no medal which is awarded posthumously to law enforcement officers and first responders killed in the line of duty directly from the Office of President and on behalf of a grateful nation. Out of this horrific tragedy, the medal of sacrifice was born.

Six months later, I had the profound honor of standing alongside President Trump in the Oval Office as he presented the first medals of sacrifice to the families of those three fallen Palm Beach County Sheriff's Deputies that were lost on that day, three lions of our community.

These men gave their lives in service each and every day. In the end, they gave the last breath in their lungs and the last beat of their heart as so many of our law enforcement and first responders across our country do each year.

There is not a recognition that can ever bring them back. There is not an award that could ever repay their sacrifice. What we can do is ensure that their courage and their service and their legacies are recognized by the highest office of our land, the Office of President.

The medal of sacrifice will ensure that when a family member, a spouse, a son, a daughter, or a department, that when they reflect on the end of watch for their friend or their hero or their loved one, they will know that it is the whole of America that remembers with them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to send a clear message to the families who have given so much, suspend the rules, and pass the Medal of Sacrifice Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we at war?

I confirmed with my staff we are not at war.

Are there any troops on the ground?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, President Trump, for finishing the job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 68 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 61 and H. Con. Res. 64 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or his designee; that each such concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on each such concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion, except for: 1, with respect to H. Con. Res. 61, 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees; and 2, with respect to H. Con. Res. 64, 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.