Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying something that should not be controversial at all in this House. In fact, it has been the position of this House throughout. The Iranian regime is a malign, nefarious, and deadly actor. It has appointed terrorist groups on militias across the Middle East, slaughtered its own people, quashed dissent, and threatened Americans and our interests for decades.

Members of both sides of the aisle know this. Congress has said it many times before. In fact, during my years in Congress, this body has passed dozens of resolutions and laws recognizing Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. There is no dispute there. This is not a dispute.

Let us be honest about what this resolution is. It is not new policy. It is not new information. It does nothing to protect a single American, servicemember, or ally. I think it is about politics. Maybe it is a stunt because of what Members are going to debate right after this. I don't think this accomplishes what Chairman Mast or the Republicans think it does, because in no way does this have any effect on the War Powers Resolution debate later today.

People can agree--and we all do--and we all know that Iran is bad. People also should agree that the President should come to Congress if he wants to make the case for war. These two truths are not incompatible.

For decades, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to counter Iran's dangerous behavior. Congress has imposed layer after layer of sanctions, disrupted terrorist financing networks, strengthened regional partnerships, and worked with our allies to constrain Iran's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has often upended or ignored bipartisan work: for example, when he pardoned the founder of Binance, an enabler of the Iran regime that allowed his company to be used to fund Iran's terror proxies.

Past efforts were designed to contain and deter Iran's threats while protecting Americans' interests in avoiding a broader regional war.

Today, Americans find ourselves in a very different situation. At President Trump's own behest, the United States is now engaged in direct military conflict with Iran, a conflict that was initiated without congressional authorization and without a clear explanation to the American people for what the endgame is.

To be clear: No one in this Chamber doubts the danger posed by the Iranian regime. Recognizing that threat does not mean abandoning our Constitution. It does not mean Congress should surrender its responsibility to debate and authorize war. It certainly does not mean we should walk blindly into a conflict with a deadly serious adversary without our own serious or clear strategy for what comes next.

The stakes here are not symbolic. They aren't talking points.

American servicemembers are in harm's way. The Middle East is on the brink of a wider conflict. The consequences of a war with Iran could shape the region--and American security--for decades.

Instead of debating yet another resolution stating something that we all already know, this body should be asking some real questions: What are the objectives of this war? What is the strategy for preventing regional escalation? What is the plan for the day after? What will this cost the American people? The American people deserve those answers, and Congress deserves a vote. Our constituents are waiting to hear.

Mr. Speaker, 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I made very clear that there is no disagreement in Congress that Iran is a bad actor. It is a state sponsor of terror.

I have said it over and over again in my career, and I think every Member of Congress has said it over and over again. That is really not what this concurrent resolution is really about. This resolution really is a stunt meant to try to cast a shadow on the imminent Iran War Powers Resolution debate that is going to follow this. This came up today, just at the last minute, to try to throw it in specifically because of the debate.

Both things can be true, Mr. Speaker. Congress can recognize that Iran is a bad actor, as we have done multiple times, and the President of the United States cannot unilaterally drag our country into war without congressional deliberation, debate, and authorization.

The Constitution of the United States of America says that only Congress can declare war. So that is what the next debate will be all about.

Do we want to live up to what we took an oath of office and take a vote for the American people to see where everyone stands and to be sure that we are not giving away our power to the executive branch of government and that we in Congress are going to do our job that the Constitution states that we should do?

If the Constitution wanted one person to make that decision, then it would have so stated.

Yes, I will be voting for this resolution, absolutely, 100 percent. I have voted for so many other similar resolutions over the years. However, I plan to also do my constitutional duty to take my responsibility, not to give it away to the executive branch of government and not to shrink from my responsibilities. I plan also on voting for the War Powers Resolution on Iran in the debate immediately following this resolution which we have passed numerous times in this House.

It is a stunt, but, unfortunately, that is where we are, as opposed to doing real business.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in Donald Trump's own words and the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's own words, the United States is at war with Iran.

The question is: Did Congress authorize the war as the Constitution requires?

Did the President present anything before Congress?

Did the Congress have any debate?

Did any administrative authority come before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify?

The answer to that is no.

The question is: Was there any imminent threat requiring the use of force?

The administration has not presented one. In fact, the word ``imminent'' does not appear even once in the administration's own war powers notification. Mr. Speaker, you can't find the word ``imminent.''

Did the Trump administration even bother making the case to the American people or to Congress? Just 8 days ago, during the State of the Union Address, the most visible platform a President has, he could have laid out the rationale for military action, as other Presidents have. Instead, Iran was just a footnote in a record-long speech.

This is a war of choice that was launched by this administration without authorization, without clearly stating objectives or a defined endgame, and without explaining how they intend to keep Americans safe.

The chaos unleashed will not be borne by the President's family. It will be borne by our men and women in uniform who will face retaliation from Iran and its proxy networks. It will be borne by innocent civilians at heightened risk of attacks from Iran's aligned terrorist cells. It will be borne by American families paying more for groceries, for electricity, and for gasoline, all for Donald Trump's war of choice.

Americans woke up on Saturday to the news that the United States is again at war in the Middle East. They don't know for how long because the President has not articulated a clearly defined endgame. Military action without a defined strategy invites escalation, mission creep, and failure. We should have learned this lesson already. Why? We should have learned it already from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

This War Powers Resolution is simple. This is not a vote on Authorization for Use of Military Force. This simply demands that the President of the United States come to Congress, as our Constitution demands, to seek authorization for what he, himself, has described as a war.

Just abide by the Constitution. We all bring our hands up and swear when we are sworn in and say we will abide by the Constitution. You would think that the President of the United States would do just that.

This War Powers Resolution does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not stop the President from responding to an imminent attack. It does not limit us from protecting our troops.

I have served in Congress for 28 years, and I have been in this Chamber as this body has done its most sacred and serious work deliberating whether to send our American servicemembers into harm's way. It is a difficult vote. It is a serious vote. Probably--not probably--without question, the hardest votes that I have ever had to take, but that is my responsibility. I took a pledge to the Constitution that I would follow it.

I was here for the vote after 9/11 to go into Afghanistan, a heavy decision. The President brought information in. We had dialogue. We had conversation. We had debate. We did something else. In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we had hearings. We had administration officials come in.

I wasn't even the ranking member or the chair or anything else. I was just a member of the committee. I could call the administration and say: I need to speak to a Deputy Secretary or the Secretary, and they would come into my office, and we would have this dialogue to determine whether or not we were going to go into this war.

Has that happened now? For over a year, for all the times, not once, not once have we had a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We have asked to have individuals who were negotiating. Unfortunately, some of them are not employed by the State Department, et cetera, like Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff, who all are friends of the President's, basically real estate negotiators who were just half an hour in Geneva, flipping back and forth from two major negotiations. If it was serious, I wouldn't have been in the White House, when the President was supposed to have been honoring individuals after we had lost the lives of six servicemembers, talking about curtains and how I redecorated the White House. This is too serious a decision for me and I would hope for the President of the United States also.

Getting the facts in Iraq, the Secretary of State came before and testified, went before the U.N., talked to the American people. Now, I disagreed because I didn't see the connections after I got the information on Iraq, so I voted no. I agreed on Afghanistan. However, the point here is, the President obeyed the Constitution because he came to Congress first and allowed the Members of Congress to make a determination.

What has happened year after year in my time here, I have watched Congress gradually relinquish its authority on matters of war to the executive branch. We have allowed overly broad Authorizations for the Use of Military Force to remain on the books. We have permitted Presidents of both parties to commit forces without a vote. This war with Iran is the most extreme example of that abdication.

The Framers rejected the idea of a king, meaning one person making a decision without consultation, without giving any reason to this body. It was absolutely rejected. We are not under an authoritarian government, like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin can go to war and he doesn't have to worry about the Duma. They are not a body that has the responsibility that we have in this Congress, so he can go on and fight a war that he has created without worrying about having to talk and being accountable to anyone.

Our Founding Fathers did not want that. They didn't want a king. That is why we were created as a body. It is long past time for us to reclaim and stand up for that authority, for I tell you, even though he may want to think he is, Donald Trump is not a king.

If he believes the war with Iran is in our national interests, then he must come to Congress and make the case.

Show the facts. Show what the intelligence says. Come to Congress and allow us to ask the questions.

We have had three scenarios. The so-called Gang of Eight met once. Then they got another phone call right beforehand. Then the so-called Gang of 20 met once. That is all we have heard from the President.

I oppose this war of choice, but guess what, Mr. Speaker, each Member here must make clear with their own vote where they stand on that decision.

The President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission and without a coherent strategy and without a defined endgame.

Some Members of Congress may decide after they see everything--we may not see it together in the same way, but the evidence and the case comes here and then we take a vote. As was the occasion for me back in 2003, I voted one way, and the majority voted another way. The President had the authority. Another time, I voted the way the majority voted. But each time they came to us. That is what this debate is about and that is what we need to do.

Now, as I see this, the President has initiated hostilities without a clear mission, without a coherent strategy, and without a defined endgame. This open-ended, undefined military engagement is precisely what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain. We are not the Iranian Parliament. We are not a rubberstamp Congress, or at least we shouldn't be a rubberstamp Congress. However, in this scenario, we see that whatever this President wants, my colleagues on the other side will just rubberstamp it.

We should be a coequal branch of government, and our duty is not optional. It was written in the Constitution. The Framers gave Congress this authority because they believed no single person should have the power to take this Nation to war alone.

Today, we either defend the principle or we surrender it. I choose to defend the Constitution and defend the principle and do my job that I put my hand up and swore I would. Hard votes, easy votes, I will take them all because that is what I swore an oath to do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, all I will say is that if Iran has been an imminent threat for 47 years, the word ``imminent'' then loses all meaning.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader in the United States House of Representatives, from Brooklyn, New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the person who is the greatest Speaker in the history of the United States Congress, the first woman, and the distinguished Speaker Emerita.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the esteemed whip of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), who is the sponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the cosponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), an esteemed member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that this is a Massie bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the President would follow the Constitution.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).

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

Mr. Speaker, I never heard Donald Trump say it was an imminent threat.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to be clear about what this resolution is not. It is not a vote for or against war with Iran. It is not an authorization for use of military force. It does not prevent the United States from defending itself. It does not restrict our U.S. military from protecting our troops or our assets or our interests.

Mr. Speaker, you may have heard some of those claims on the other side today. They are wrong.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

What is it?

It is simple. It simply requires hostilities to stop unless and until Congress does what the Constitution says it should do: authorize them. That is what the Constitution says. It affirms a basic principle: No President can take this action or take this Nation to war against whomever whenever that President wishes to do it without congressional authorization.

This is a war. The administration has said so themselves. We have heard many Members on the other side of the aisle say this is a war. This is a war, but it is a war of choice, not a war authorized by the United States Congress.

In the administration's own war powers notification--and if you haven't read it, we will give it to you--they do not use or mention the word ``imminent'' at all, not once. The administration has presented no imminent threat. Why? It is because it cannot.

I want to give my colleagues the definition of the word ``imminent.'' If it was so imminent, Donald Trump didn't do anything when he was the President before.

How long will this war last? We don't know. The administration doesn't seem to know. Their stated objectives are expansive and shifting every day. They seem to shift. One day I heard them say it was regime change. The next day I heard them say it is nuclear weapons. Then after that, it was ballistic missiles, and then we heard the Secretary of State say Israel was going to strike first, and so we felt we had to. Otherwise, Iran would strike first.

Mr. Speaker, this administration's case for war makes the Bush administration's weapons of mass destruction story look like a well- documented Ph.D. dissertation.

Now, to the Members of Congress who disagree with my opposition to this war: I disagree because I have listened and I have heard, and I disagree with this war. But I say to them: If you disagree with this war, it is your prerogative, but you should vote. We should have a vote.

This vote is not about whether or not you support military action. It is about whether you believe Congress should have a say. In essence, it kind of meant should we exist. The Constitution said we should exist. We were created as a country because they were running from a king who did not want a Congress, who didn't have a Congress, who could just do whatever he wanted.

That is why the first thing that the Founders said is Congress should be the only one that had the power. Leader Jeffries said--and he went back to a Republican Member of the House of Representatives, Abraham Lincoln, who said: ``The provisions of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us''--no one man.

We took an oath. We swore to uphold Article I of the Constitution. Our constituents expect us to deliberate on matters of war and peace.

Did we deliberate on it? No.

Have we had hearings in the House Foreign Affairs Committee? No.

Have we had Mr. Jared Kushner here to talk about it? He was supposed to have been negotiating. No.

Have we had Steve Witkoff here? No.

Have we had anyone other than--they came for other reasons; we were able to ask a few questions--than Secretary Rubio come? No.

Has there been not dialogue and conversation? We have the so-called Gang of Eight, and they want to say that is

notification. Well, let's talk about it. We didn't ever debate anything on the floor of the House.

How many times has the Gang of Eight met? Once. Speaker Johnson would say that is sufficient. Even in that, this imminent strike was never mentioned. We heard from Mr. Himes, who is part of the Gang of Eight. The next time the Gang of Eight was heard was only a few hours before the one who wants to be king said he was going to attack. That is the only dialogue and conversation that took place before the strike.

There has been no debate on the floor, no trying to talk to the Members of Congress and, most importantly, the American people because just before the State of the Union, when the President had the whole world, we heard a whole 2-hour speech, the longest in the history of these United States of America, Iran was hardly a mention. If it was an imminent threat, I would think he would want to tell the Nation at that time that we had to do something imminently.

We have soldiers who have died, and the President starts talking about curtains and reconstruction and putting gold things up because he likes it. He told families, Gold Star families now unfortunately, that it wasn't serious enough.

This is a serious situation. Congress is a coequal branch of government. The Framers vested the war powers in this body because they believed no single person should bring this Nation to war alone, and so today we either defend our principles or surrender it. I urge my colleagues to join me in defending it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Ethel L. Cuff Black, a trailblazing educator and one of the 22 visionary founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

Born on October 17, 1890, in Wilmington, Delaware, Mrs. Cuff Black was raised with a commitment to excellence and service that guided her life. She pursued her studies at Howard University, where she became one of the 22 young women who boldly established Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., on January 13, 1913. The sorority was founded on principles of scholarship, sisterhood, and service; values that Mrs. Cuff Black carried into every facet of her life.

In one of their first acts of service, Mrs. Cuff Black joined her sorority sisters in the historic 1913 March down Pennsylvania Avenue, standing at the forefront of the struggle for equality and representation. Her courage and vision laid the groundwork for one of the Nation's most influential Black women's organization, which continues to uplift communities more than a century later.

After graduating, Mrs. Cuff Black dedicated herself to education, serving as a teacher in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Later in New York, she became the first Black teacher in Richmond Hills, Queens. Mrs. Cuff Black joined 10 other dedicated women in chartering the Queens Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Together, they worked hand in hand with the community to advance educational opportunities, promote civic engagement, and uplift families across Queens. This act of leadership and service ensured that the sorority's mission remained deeply rooted in community partnership for decades to come. Since 1952, the Queens Alumnae chapter has awarded over $400,000 in scholarship to students in the Queens community.

Mrs. Cuff Black is most honorably remembered for her unwavering devotion to education, community, advancing opportunities for Black Americans, and her pioneering spirit in the fight for social justice. She is survived by the enduring legacy of her students and the hundreds of thousands of Delta women who follow in her footsteps across four continents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard that story before that this is all about drugs. If I recall correctly, the former President of Honduras probably put more drugs in the United States than Canada has combined. The President of the United States didn't say that was an emergency. He pardoned him. I have heard it before. It is all about drugs. That was the case.

What is the case and what is a fact is that in the last year, tariffs have cost American families nearly $1,700. That cost is expected to increase in 2026. That is the case. Since these tariffs were imposed, U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21 percent.

When I go home, my constituents aren't telling me they have an extra $1,700 to spare. They are asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the price of healthcare, and make life more affordable. That is what this is about. It is about the American people and making things affordable for them.

Today's vote is simple. It is very simple. Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote to lower the cost of living for American families, or will they keep prices high out of loyalty to Donald J. Trump?

That is what this vote is. That is why we pressed for this vote today. That is why a day is a day, and we finally get our chance to have the Members of the House vote their conscience. Do they vote for the President and his ways, or do they vote for their people, their constituents?

Let's be clear about this so-called emergency Donald Trump declared on Canada and so many other countries where no emergency exists. For over 50 years, emergency authorities have been declared. What have they been? Yes, they have been for civil wars. Pandemics? I think that is an emergency. A massive human rights crisis could be an emergency.

Canada is none of those things. Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165 Canadians gave their lives after our country was attacked. There is no national emergency. There is no national security threat underpinning these threats.

In an interview just last night, Donald J. Trump admitted he placed tariffs on Switzerland. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. It is simply because he didn't like the way their leader spoke to him. He put tariffs on Switzerland.

That is not a strategy. That is impulse. That is a person who is just trying to say that he is the king. Mr. Speaker, guess what. That impulse, who is going to pay the price for it? Who is going to pay the price for that impulse? I will tell my colleagues who. It is the American people.

Our morning coffee, our kids' chocolate, lifesaving medical devices, those are the Canadian goods that are being hit by 35 percent tariffs. Americans are paying more for healthcare and their daily essentials during an affordability crisis, all because of a manufactured emergency and one person's ego.

The damage doesn't stop there. What about American products? They are being boycotted across Canada. Don't believe me? Just look at the President's social media posts from just 2 days ago where he said:

``Ontario won't even put the U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves.''

Tourism from Canada is down 30 percent. People in the hospitality industry--Las Vegas, my home State of New York, and the chairman's home State of Florida--are losing their jobs because Canadians do not want to come to the United States of America.

What are the people getting in return? I will tell my colleagues what they are getting. They are getting higher electricity costs during one of the coldest winters in modern history. They are getting higher food prices and higher costs for industrial goods and healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, this is heads, we lose; tails, we lose.

Tariffs are bad for American workers. They are bad for businesses. They are bad for working families. Instead of addressing the affordability crisis, which the President has called a hoax, Republicans have spent a year blocking this vote to protect Donald Trump, rather than doing their job to help the American people and what the American people did send us here to do, which is to lower costs. That ends today.

Every Member now has to go on record. Do they stand with the disastrous trade war or with their constituents who are demanding relief? It is time we end this so-called national emergency because the only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's tariffs.

I urge the adoption of the resolution and the termination of these unnecessary and harmful tariffs, which are just taxes on the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had some time from the last time that we were on this floor. If he were so serious about drugs, I asked the chairman previously: Why would the President of the United States pardon one of the biggest drug dealers who was killing Americans, Juan Orlando Hernandez. The last time, the gentleman said that he hadn't spoken to the President and didn't know why.

Mr. Speaker, if he is so interested in stopping drugs, maybe he could have and should have had a conversation.

Let me just tell you something about drugs, how much drugs are coming in from Canada, because that is what this is about. As a former special narcotics prosecutor--that is me--I know a little bit about that. Saying that you are going to focus and stop certain things from coming across the border of Canada, as if it is coming across in a cluster like it is an emergency, is just an out-and-out lie.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at the Federal prosecutions--this just came out not too long ago--for narcotics in the United States of America, it just came out that, under the Trump administration, Federal drug prosecutions fell to the lowest level in decades. It talked about that Federal drug prosecutions dropped 10 percent in 2025 as agents changed their focus to immigration, that the number of new cases being filed is the lowest in decades according to a Reuters analysis. High-priority drug investigations have stalled since Donald Trump took office. It doesn't sound like the President of the United States is really concerned about drug prosecutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an individual who really knows about taxes and tariffs, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Have you found out yet why Mr. Hernandez has been pardoned?

I want to find out right now because I would prosecute him.

Have you had a conversation with the President about it?

Well, you should. If you consider--why aren't you prosecuting cases now?

It would not be coming from Canada.

Did the fentanyl come from Canada?

What source is that?

Mr. Speaker, what source is the gentleman talking about?

No, I think that is Canada is doing law enforcement on its side, and we are not doing now law enforcement on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada plays virtually no role in the United States' fentanyl influx, especially compared to other countries targeted by the Trump administration. Canada contributes less than 1 percent to our southern neighbor's border of street fentanyl, less than 1 percent. That is not according to me, because I don't know where he gets his facts, but that is according to the DEA, as well as the Canadian Government, 1 percent.

We do a lot of trade with Canada, and in Florida's 21st District, the chairman's district, exports to Canada support 1,650 jobs. Many of them will begin to lose their jobs. This is about affordability. This is about job creation and the economy. I wonder what he is going to say to those 1,650 people in Florida's 21st District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the talk time is soon over because of what I am hearing from the other side. Basically what this is about is the American people having a chance to see where their Members are, whether they want to--they will judge ultimately--believe that this is an emergency from what they hear and know of the President or whether they are concerned about their cost of living, whether they are concerned about that hot chocolate, whether they are concerned about that coffee, or whether they are concerned about life-saving medical devices.

What this will do--which has been blocked for almost a year--is simply to have a vote on the House floor so that the American people can see because then ultimately, we will know which way is the right way for them.

We are here to represent the citizens of the United States of America, not a President. We soon will have a vote because that is what is going to happen, which is what I have been asking for for over a year. If you think this is an emergency, if you believe the President, you are going to vote that way. If you think this is going to be accountable to the American people, if you think that the American people will say that the cost of living, the cost of electricity, the cost of food every day they go to the market is of concern to them, they will be watching how you vote on this bill. They will be watching. Vote how you want. This is for the American people to see where you stand, with them or the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I will say, yes, the economy is booming. Mr. Speaker, if you are a billionaire, the economy is booming. However, when I go home and I talk to my constituents, what they tell me is that the price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. So for them, it is not booming.

As I said, this is just about a vote. It is just about a vote. I wish we could have had this vote 1 year ago. If, in fact, they believe this is an emergency, I don't know why it was held up for 1 year and tried to be prevented again.

It is a vote. Let the American people know where you stand, Mr. Speaker. They see it with your vote.

Do you stand with them, Mr. Speaker, trying to fix the affordability crisis, or do you stand with Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues who are just taking care of those for whom the economy is booming, the billionaires of our country?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who is the ranking member of HFAC's Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

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

The American people are watching. This is very simple. Why did we take a year to get this vote? It is because Trump's tariffs are unpopular--the majority of Americans know it--and a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be on the record. Well, they are going to be on the record.

They know that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of these tariffs. They know that the foreign governments don't pay these tariffs. They know that American families do. The farmers feel it. Small businesses feel it. Moms and dads feel it every time they see the prices at the grocery store.

What this is, we can go back and forth, but the American people are watching. They are the ultimate judges. They can see. They can hear. They know our friend. They know how Canada and Canadians are friendly to us in the United States of America, closest partners. Many Canadians have given their lives for us.

The American people can watch. What this simply does, this resolution, we will see. If you think that there is a crisis with Canada, then vote.

Still, the Constitution says it is the House of Representatives and the United States Congress, it is within our authority. Don't punt. Don't just hide behind somebody else. That is what this will do. If you believe that this is an emergency, vote that way, if that is what you really believe.

However, if you go to the grocery stores, if you see the price of beef, if you look at the price of coffee, if you feel that the economy is suffering as a result of these tariffs, if you think the economy for the average, everyday American is as good as those billionaire friends that the President has, then you vote with the President.

Give up, but don't give up your authority as a Member of this House to vote. The first fight here was the power to vote on this issue, which was blocked for 1 year. I choose not to give up that power. Whether I agree or disagree, I want to vote on it. That was prevented for over a year.

Today, we will vote on it. I thank some of my colleagues on the other side who have had the courage to stand up and say: Let's vote. Let's vote on this, and let the American people know how we stand. Let's vote on this to see if we believe that tariffs cause an affordability issue. Let's vote on this if we believe that Canada is not our friend, if Canada is an adversary, and you feel we should block a bridge like the President is talking about now, a bridge that Canadians paid for right across, block it, make them the 51st State, and insult them. If that is what you want to do, do it.

If you want to stand to bring down prices, if you want the average, everyday American to be able to raise their children and live the American Dream, if you want to make sure that families can afford to pay their rent, can afford to buy food, can afford to have healthcare, then you vote ``yes'' for this resolution.

The jury is really the American people. They ultimately will vote. They ultimately will tell us what is in their best interests. I have confidence in the American people. That is why I wanted a vote on this bill.

I didn't want to play the funny rules that were being played and were attempted last night. Fortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side did not want to play that game anymore either.

Those rules and those games that were played to prevent a vote on the floor in the United States Congress are over. That is what this is about, so the American people can see what we stand for. Do we stand for just going blindly with the President of the United States, or do we stand for the American people and making sure that their cost of living is cheaper and affordable so they can simply send their kids to school and be able to put a good meal on the table and a roof over the heads of their families? That is what this vote is about.

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

I will say that the American people are the judges. They don't need to hear anything else. The American people will judge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is Groundhog Day again in Washington, D.C. You know, this week is an opportunity to drive down electricity costs, create jobs at home by bolstering our exports of goods made in America. It is an opportunity to lower the cost of groceries and healthcare for families around our great country. But this Republican majority never misses an opportunity to do the opposite of addressing affordability for the American people.

After all of the majority's procedural shenanigans last year, my resolutions ending President Trump's harmful tariffs on Canada and Mexico are due for a vote this week. But the Republicans couldn't let that stand. They are trying to change the rules again and again and again and again to do what? They are trying to change the rules again to avoid voting on ending Trump's tariffs.

Just this week, new research from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation showed that the President's tariffs cost the average American well over $1,000. It will cost them even more now. That is what it cost them last year. It will be even more this year.

President Trump brags about the money generated from tariffs, but it is money ripped right out of the wallets of working families. Will this body listen to the affordability concerns of our constituents and retake our responsibility over Congress' Article I powers to tax and trade? No, they won't. Will they lower the cost of utilities and groceries or medical devices around the United States that Americans need? No, they won't.

What we are witnessing is one of the most astounding displays of cowardice in the modern history of Congress. It is truly a spectacle. In all my years, I have never seen a group of Members so deeply afraid of just doing their job.

The American people sent us here to address their affordability concerns. I had to say to one member of the administration just last week: Do not continue to be a flunky of the President. Don't be a flunky of the President. Don't block for the President if he is not doing the right thing. Work for the American people. Don't be flunkies for the President when you know he is wrong. Work for the American people. Let's vote on this. Let's have the bravery to vote on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Crystal Bonds, an extraordinary educator and leader retiring after more than 27 years of distinguished service to the New York City Department of Education and to the students and families of Southeast Queens.

Dr. Bonds began her remarkable career in education as a teacher and mathematics coach in District 29, where she quickly established herself as a passionate advocate for student achievement and instructional excellence. As her career progressed, she assumed a number of critical leadership roles within the New York Department of Education, including Assistant Principal, Principal, and Master Ambassador Principal. Her success led to her appointment to Superintendent of District 29.

As Superintendent, Dr. Bonds provided visionary leadership to 36 K-8 schools, serving approximately 17,000 students. Her work was shaped by a profound personal connection to District 29, due to her own children attending schools within the district. This connection manifested loyalty to the community that supported her family and inspired her to drive positive change, growth, and equity across the district.

Throughout her career, Dr. Bonds advocated for public education locally, nationally, and internationally for more than two decades. Her leadership as a K-12 educator consistently focused on promoting equitable education, experiences, and outcomes for all students, making her not only respected beyond New York, but revered.

Under her leadership, the High School for Math, Science, and Engineering became the highest achieving public high school in New York City and New York State. Her devotion and dedication manifested numerically in the high school's rank rising from 30th to 1st during her tenure. From the classroom to the Superintendent's office, Dr. Bonds' championship of targeted support for educators directly closed the opportunity gaps students faced, leading to improvements in student achievement and expanded programs in the district.

In addition to her dedicated public service, Dr. Bonds founded Changing Norms, Inc., extending her lifelong commitment to uplifting underserved communities. Her experience across elementary, middle, and high school levels bolsters her track record of excellence and lasting impact on education.

Dr. Crystal Bonds' outstanding dedication, leadership, and years of exemplary service will continue to inspire those who follow in her footsteps. I proudly honor her lifetime of service and wish her continued success and fulfillment in all that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and enduring legacy of Mr. Rick Cotton, one of the most impactful transportation leaders New York has ever known. His profound career reflects an unwavering commitment to public service, visionary leadership, and the belief that infrastructure can, and should, improve the lives of millions.

Mr. Cotton earned an Artium Baccalaureus from Harvard College and a Juris Doctorate from Yale Law School and served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan Jr., on the Supreme Court of the United States. He brings a distinguished record of leadership across the private sector, public service, and international affairs. Mr. Cotton spent 25 years at NBC Universal, including 20 years as Executive Vice President and General Counsel, and later served four years as President and Managing Director of CNBC Europe. Earlier in his career, he served the federal government as Executive Secretary at the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and as Special Assistant for Renewable Energy at the United States Department of Energy. Across every role, he demonstrated a

rare ability to navigate complexity while keeping the public interest at the forefront.

Mr. Cotton later served as New York State's Special Counselor to the Governor for Interagency Initiatives, where he helped advance some of the state's most transformative infrastructure projects. These efforts included the redevelopment of LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy Airports, Moynihan Train Hall and the Penn Farley Complex, the new Tappan Zee Bridge, the expansion of the Javits Center, and the Second Avenue Subway. These projects not only modernized critical assets, but reshaped how New Yorkers move, work, and connect across the region.

In 2017, Mr. Cotton was appointed Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Under his leadership, the agency confronted some of the region's most complex infrastructure challenges and undertook one of the most ambitious capital programs in its history. This included a $30 billion transformation of the region's major airports and the full reconstruction of the Midtown Bus Terminal, laying the foundation for world class transportation facilities built for the 21st Century.

More than the projects completed or milestones reached, Mr. Rick Cotton's legacy is reflected in the people he supported, the teams he strengthened, and the standard of professionalism he brought to work. His tenure will be remembered for its scale, its vision, and its lasting impact on generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, we should vote today to end these tariffs and lower costs for everyday Americans. Instead, this House majority is paralyzed by fear, making it one of the least effective in modern American history.

The American people sent us to Washington to address affordability and to lower the cost of healthcare, housing, and groceries. Yet, this Congress has taken fewer votes in 2025 than in any nonpandemic year this century.

Apparently, the majority doesn't think affordability is important enough to vote on. Instead of focusing on prices, the White House has spent the past week talking about invading Greenland or using our taxpayer dollars to buy an island that isn't for sale.

To advance this fantasy, President Trump threatened yet another round of tariffs that would raise prices even further, only to walk back the threats after the stock market tanked yesterday.

Regardless of what the President does, we are a coequal branch of government. We should be addressing affordability right now by passing the resolutions I have offered and resolutions that have already passed the Senate to terminate these tariffs.

When asked to explain why we are not doing everything we can to lower costs for American families, the Speaker responded that the President is exercising Article II powers to impose tariffs. There is only one problem. The President has no Article II powers to tax or tariff. Those powers are explicitly assigned to the United States Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

The Republican majority is more interested in providing cover for Donald Trump than honoring their oath to the Constitution of the United States and deliberately avoiding doing its job to lower costs for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching. The camera of history is recording. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and demand a vote on terminating the tariffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of man does that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as a longtime proponent of the African Growth and Opportunity Extension Act, I rise today in support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 6500, the AGOA Extension Act.

Let me first thank Ways and Means Committee Chairman Smith, Chairman Smith of the Trade Subcommittee, Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Linda Sanchez for working on this in a bipartisan way and getting it over the hurdle.

Madam Speaker, I also have to think about an individual who mentored me. I cannot think about AGOA without thinking about the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the

Honorable late Charles B. Rangel. He always spoke and thought of doing what he could for the continent of Africa.

The African Growth and Opportunity Extension Act delivers significant economic benefit to the United States. In removing barriers to trade between the United States and Africa, AGOA has enabled approximately $1.8 billion in salaries for American workers each year.

AGOA also provides approximately $1 billion in annual benefits to American consumers. The program has resulted in millions of American households enjoying lower prices for cocoa, coffee, and other goods that the United States cannot produce at home.

American businesses understand the value of supporting robust U.S.- Africa trade, which supports more than 450,000 jobs across the United States.

For this reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Apparel & Footwear Association, and countless other business associations are calling for AGOA's reauthorization by Congress.

Put simply, this bill offers clear advantages for millions of American workers. AGOA is essential to also protecting U.S. foreign policy interests in Africa.

As we speak, China and other U.S. adversaries are trying to undermine the African Continent to do this kind of work. In fact, Chinese officials seek to deepen China's commercial ties with African countries, prevent American businesses from competing in local markets, and redirect trade away from the United States.

Africa is the continent with the world's fastest growing population. China recognizes the critical role that Africa will play in the future and its economy and wants to exploit that, particularly as global demand for critical minerals and rare earth elements increases. China understands its own economy will benefit by making trade with Africa easier, not harder, and that is why China is rooting for AGOA's demise while offering zero-trade deals that mimic this vital U.S. program.

Madam Speaker, there are certainly improvements we can make in terms of encouraging countries to better utilize the trade preferences offered under AGOA and to maximize their government strategies to take full advantage of those benefits. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve AGOA over the next 3 years, but extending the legislation is a first critical step.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6504, the Haiti Economic Lift Program Extension Act.

First, as all have done, I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. Murphy, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and for his partnership because we worked closely together to try to make sure that Haiti is given an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of the people of Haiti.

I also, again, can't help but celebrate the legacy of the former chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel, who championed meeting our moral responsibility to support stability and dignity for Haitians.

That is precisely what this bill does today. The Haiti Economic Lift Program Extension Act provides an economic lifeline to tens of thousands of Haitian families facing a gang-fueled humanitarian crisis that gets worse by the day.

The dire conditions on the ground in Haiti, driven by brutal, armed gangs, cannot be understated, and 1.4 million Haitians, over 10 percent of the country's population, are internally displaced. One-half of the country's population experiences life-threatening levels of hunger. Diseases such as cholera have spread as an increasing number of Haitians lack adequate access to drinking water, food, and healthcare.

Every family that is employed through the HOPE/HELP trade preference before us today for extension is a family less vulnerable to gang coercion, extortion, or recruitment.

There is no path to stability in Haiti without creating a foundation for economic opportunity. The HOPE/HELP program does exactly that. We simply cannot afford to abandon the thousands of Haitian families who depend on this program, nor the economic lift to our region that it will provide.

As the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), knows best, because of her commitment to the Caribbean, this is a very important bill.

Lastly, let me say to Chairman Smith, who goes to the gym in the morning and for months said to me

time and time again he will continue to work tirelessly until he gets this bill done: I thank him for doing this and doing it in a bipartisan way with Ranking Member Neal and others.

This is the way we can do good in the United States House of Representatives and good for people who are in need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is our job. That is our responsibility.

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

That is our job.

Why don't we do our job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith for the manner in which they worked together in a bipartisan way. It is an example of what has taken place here for almost 60 years, where we come together for this legislation. I will just add, though, that I would love the day when the State authorization bill stands on its own, so I look for and long for that day.

Let me just start with what I believe is good in the bill that was negotiated. The Iraq war ended more than a decade ago, yet Presidents from both parties have cited the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, to justify military actions completely unrelated to Iraq. Leaving it on the books invites future Presidents to drag us into reckless foreign wars. The American people do not want those wars, and Congress has not yet authorized those wars, nor will it. They will have to come to Congress for that power.

I am honored to take the baton from former Congresswoman Barbara Lee in

carrying this legislation forward. I thank the lead across the aisle, Representative Roy, for getting this past the finish line.

This bill also includes legislation like the Haiti Criminal Collusion Transparency Act, which would curb the flow of illegal arms fueling Haiti's crises and hold accountable those elites enabling it. They will be put in check. It restores the State Department's Office of Haitian Affairs in a bipartisan way. The NDAA preserves bipartisan initiatives like the Payne, Pickering, and Rangel Fellowships and the Veterans Innovation Partnership Fellowship at the State Department.

There are, of course, some things in here that I don't agree with and that I wish we could have gotten in. I wanted a stronger DFC, which is dealing with this core development mission and not giving those things away.

All in all, I have decided to vote ``yes'' in that spirit. I know you don't get everything that you want, but as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where we try to do things also in a bipartisan way, I appreciate what the two gentlemen are doing in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Wagner, Chairman French Hill, Mr. Gottheimer, and to my dear friend and person that I respect and admire, the Ranking Member Maxine Waters, for their leadership.

Mr. Chair, I am here today to say why I support this bill and why it was important for me to be a cosponsor.

I support this bill because I believe it is a meaningful step for working families. At a time when families continue to feel the pressures of rising costs and financial uncertainty, the INVEST Act represents a meaningful, commonsense step to help Americans secure their financial futures.

Mr. Chair, 62 percent of Americans are invested in the stock market and the vast majority are not day traders or wealthy investors. There are millions of everyday workers who participate through mutual funds, pensions, and retirement plans like the 401(k)'s and IRAs.

I support this bill because it expands access to capital for underserved and under-networked entrepreneurs. This bill modernizes outdated rules that have made it especially hard for Black and Brown founders and minority-owned small businesses to meet investors, to participate in community investment events, and raise early capital.

The INVEST Act broadens who can responsibly participate in private markets. It preserves investor protections and strengthens oversight while recognizing that these opportunities for wealth building shouldn't just be for the super rich. It makes it easier for small businesses by reducing regulatory friction and compliance burdens that disproportionately impact them.

This package of 22 bills is fundamentally really a pro small business bill focused on addressing the affordability crisis and not a Wall Street deregulatory bill.

Mr. Chair, 16 of these bills have passed the House nearly unanimously in this Congress, and I supported every individual bill when we considered them before the Financial Services Committee, as did many of my committee colleagues.

I sponsored three of the bills in this package that I have worked on for multiple Congresses. These bills increase transparency in multiclass stock structures, protect against activist investors in closed-end funds, and encourage startups to test the waters when considering an IPO.

These issues aren't just a flash in the pan. These bills have come together after long thought and deliberation with partners like the U.S. Black Chambers, like minority banks, institutional investor advocates, and nonprofits. They are about closing the wealth gap of which I have been focused on my entire career.

That is why I support this bill. That is one of the main reasons why I am here in the United States Congress.

Strengthening our capital markets is not about helping the big guys. It is about improving the financial security of working families. Supporting the INVEST Act will give Americans more opportunities to grow their retirement savings and build long-term economic stability.

Mr. Chair, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.