Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have spoken before; so I am going to be very brief. And then I am going to call up the business of the Senate, this War Powers Resolution.

Two points. In the aftermath of the briefing yesterday, I have had good conversations with colleagues, and many of them have asked me about the distinction between the execution of a valid arrest warrant and a larger military operation.

I want to state very clearly that I do not challenge, nor does this resolution

challenge, the execution of a valid arrest warrant against Nicolas Maduro. That valid arrest warrant bringing him to justice in the United States will be good for America and good for Venezuela. We do not challenge that.

In fact, under the War Powers Resolution, I am not even sure that the execution of an arrest warrant, even if accompanied by a military escort, would rise to the level of hostilities that would allow such a challenge, and I certainly wouldn't be calling it up for a vote on the floor.

But this is obviously bigger than the initiation of an arrest warrant.

From the beginning, on September 2, the striking of Venezuelan boats in open waters, the amassing of naval assets around Venezuela, the President's authorization of covert activities, the seizure of ships, the coordinated attack of 150 aircraft that not only extracted President Maduro and his wife but also bombed sites around the country--this is bigger than an arrest warrant.

More than 200 enemies have been killed. U.S. troops have been injured. Two are still hospitalized. And now we understand, after the hearing yesterday and what has been made public, that this will go on for a long period of time. The seizure of oil, the dictation of terms about elections and the politics of Venezuela will go on for years.

This is not an attack on the arrest warrant, but it is merely a statement that, going forward, U.S. troops should not be used in hostilities in Venezuela without a vote of Congress, as the Constitution requires.

The second point I will make is this: We are all humans in this place, and one of the things we try to do is minimize votes that we might regret. It is impossible to eliminate those.

We are humans, and we cast thousands of votes even in a single term in the Senate. There will be some we might look back on and feel like: Oh, maybe we should have done this differently.

The most likely vote where regret would be most painful is a vote on matters of war.

And I just want to assure my colleagues: Here is something I can guarantee you. No one has ever regretted--no one has ever regretted--a vote that just says: Mr. President, before you send our sons and daughters to war, come to Congress. That is a vote that no one has ever regretted, and no one will ever regret.

Mr. President, I rise to speak with other colleagues about my War Powers Resolution, a bipartisan resolution cosponsored by Senators Paul, Schumer, and Schiff that will be called up for a vote tomorrow. A number of Senators will speak in this block, most in support of my resolution. I know at least one Senator, my colleague from South Carolina, is scheduled to come speak in opposition.

I spoke at length last night about sort of what I view the big picture of this--and I don't intend to speak very long. It is better now to let others have a chance to speak. But what I wanted to focus on, just briefly, was the fact that we did have a briefing by administration officials in the SCIF this morning, the classified setting, and I am not at liberty to discuss the matters in that setting.

I will say what I said last night. I think it is important on matters of this importance, especially war, when 200 combatants have been killed--and that number is climbing--when U.S. troops have been injured--two still in the hospital--when U.S. assets are arrayed around Venezuela, and when there is now a commitment for the United States to essentially manage and control the Venezuelan economy and even civil governmental services for some significant time, I think it is time for us to get this debate out of the SCIF and into the public.

So I am hoping that the Senate committees with jurisdiction, including the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, the Foreign Relations Committee, and to the extent this was a law enforcement operation, the Judiciary Committee, will finally start to have the first public hearings where administration officials can be questioned in full view of the public so that the American public knows what is at stake.

I will say one additional thing. I made my Democratic caucus mad early on when I came to the Senate because I challenged President Obama in 2013, his proposed use of the U.S. military in Syria to punish a bad dictator, Bashar Assad, for using chemical weapons against civilians.

Now, he was a President of my own party and Bashar Assad was a horrible dictator. But despite that, I challenged President Obama's ability to act and deploy U.S. military against Assad, even to punish Assad for bad behavior, without Congress.

I remember the first time I really got shouted out in a Democratic caucus meeting, it was standing against President Obama's ability to do that unilaterally without us.

I tried to maintain that consistent standard under President Obama and then President Trump, term one, President Biden, and President Trump, term two.

Even in an instance--even in an instance--where military action may be a good idea--and I might have voted for use of military action to punish Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons--it should not be done on a Presidential say-so without a vote of Congress.

So the vote tomorrow on the War Powers Resolution is not about whether we like Nicolas Maduro, whether he is a good guy. He is a bad guy. He is a dictator. He has wreaked havoc on Venezuela's economy and on human rights within Venezuela.

It is, instead, whether the United States should engage in military action against Venezuela on a Presidential say-so without a vote of Congress. I believe the Constitution is clear, and I believe the equities, in terms of the respect we owe to our troops, if we are going deploy them, gives life to the constitutional provision and really explains why it is there.

The last thing I will say before I yield to my colleague from Kentucky is one of the arguments that is being made--and this is not out of the classified setting because it is being made publicly by the administration--is this was not a military action; it was a law enforcement operation.

I think that argument is specious. I think it is--it kind of doesn't really pass the laugh test. Now, it might be an argument you would make if there were a covert operation to go into Venezuela in the dead of night and extract an indicted criminal, Nicolas Maduro--not a criminal until he is prosecuted but an indicted person--to bring back to the United States and face justice.

If it were just the execution of an arrest, you might make the argument, maybe that is just law enforcement. And you might make it even if the military was somewhat needed to carry out the arrest warrant.

This is far different than that. The boat strikes against Venezuelans in international waters, the amassing of 20 percent of the American Navy around Venezuela, the use of 150 aircraft deployed from 20 bases throughout the Western Hemisphere to carry out this operation, the arrest and deposition of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, but then also the U.S. decision to occupy and control the Venezuelan economy, its oil reserves, the indication

from the administration that this is not a few days or a few weeks; it is likely a few years of U.S. occupation and involvement in this country with a military blockade stopping commerce into and out of Venezuela--this is not an arrest warrant. This is far bigger than that, and it is the kind of hostilities that Congress specifically had in mind when they wrote the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for their own relevance. Cast a vote for your own relevance by saying that power that the Constitution gives to Congress, that it is the only body that should declare war. If you vote for me tomorrow, you reserve your right to vote for war, if you think it is a bad idea or a good idea.

But if you vote for the resolution, all you are voting for is the proposition that the Nation should not be at war with an end run around you but should only be at war if you have had the opportunity to debate and vote and put our thumbprint on the validity of the mission, and your thumbprint should be necessary if we are going to send our troops into harm's way to potentially be injured or killed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues and thank them for gathering to talk about this most important anniversary. I think all of us are used to giving speeches on the Senate floor to an empty Chamber.

When you grow up and you learn about the Senate, you generally think people are here listening to one another, but when you come to the Senate, you find that is usually not the case.

One of the things about January 6, 2021, that was very memorable in my mind was that we were all together. We were all here in the midst of a most momentous occasion--the certification of the 2020 election result--looking each other in the eye. And we all experienced the confusion of the Vice President being ushered away and those doors shutting--first the glass doors, and then the wooden doors--as the Sergeant at Arms told us that the Senate was under attack. We remember sheltering here for 45 minutes to an hour before a path had been cleared where we could go elsewhere to be safe.

We remember the brave Senate staff as we were exiting remembering to pick up the wooden boxes that contained the certifications from the various States so that we could actually complete the work of that day and not see those boxes burned by the rioters out on the grounds of the Capitol.

We were all together.

It somehow seems fitting that as we gather 5 years later, it is an empty Chamber again because many want to forget or pretend or ignore what happened that day.

I express my thanks to my colleague from Washington and others to make sure that even if we stand in this Chamber virtually alone, we are not going to forget, and we won't be silent about what occurred.

I want to mention three things as I think about those days. Only one is a memory that I have, but I want to begin with just telling you the names of the five police officers who lost their life defending this Capitol. All five were residents of Virginia.

Brian Sicknick was a member of the Capitol Police, from Springfield, VA. He was 42 years old. He had served with the Capitol Police for 13 years. He was attacked directly by that mob on January 6, and 1 day later, on January 7, he died from multiple strokes that occurred just hours after that attack.

Brian Sicknick, 42 years old.

It is a little painful to say that the other four names that I am going to now read to you and describe were four police officers who lost their lives by suicide--who were here defending this Capitol, defending us, defending me--and were so traumatized by this seat of democracy being attacked by a mob that they lost their lives by suicide in the days and weeks after the attack.

The first was a friend of mine--and I suspect a friend of many--who were here: Howie Liebengood, a Capitol Police officer who grew up in Vienna, VA. He was 51 years old. He was a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police.

Howie was an interesting guy because of his tie to the Senate. His father had worked for the Senate during Howie's entire life. This was his family. It wasn't just his job. He grew up coming to work with his dad. He grew up knowing the Halls of this Capitol as if it was his backyard.

When he graduated from college, he actually tried to break into being a NASCAR driver, which was his passion and his dad's passion. But after a few years of finding that that was hard to do, he went into the family business; he came to the family office, which was the U.S. Capitol.

Most of us remember Howie because he usually worked at the Delaware door into the Russell Building where folks come in, that door that staff and Senate visitors come in too. And I would see Howie every morning. My office is in the Russell Building, one floor up from that door where he would be every morning.

He would be this cheerful guy, greeting you, greeting your staff, making a joke, and always quick with a smile and quick with some funny quip. Howie just seemed like that kind of classic definition of just the hail fellow well met. He didn't ever meet a stranger. He loved this place as if it were his home.

He was here protecting the Capitol on January 6. He saw this place that had been his home under attack. This home of democracy, his personal home for him, everything in his life--his dad's career, his own career, his love for this institution, his love for the people in the institution--he saw it under attack by those trying to disrupt our democracy.

His wife Serena, who has also gotten to be a friend, said that Howie went into a deep depression. After this, a few days later, he came back to work and he actually was in an accident in one of the Capitol Police vehicles because his attention was elsewhere.

One day shortly after that accident, he came home and Serena said he seemed to be in a very distant mood, and he went upstairs and, a few minutes later, died by suicide.

I worked with Serena and other Senators, and I do thank Senators for this because there was a provision in the benefit for Capitol Police officers that, frankly, was a national provision for most that you could receive a benefit if your death was in the line of duty. You had to prove that it was in the line of duty. If it was during a traffic accident or summer vacation, you didn't get a line-of-duty death benefit, but there was an exclusion if you died by suicide.

You weren't even allowed to prove that the mental health or depression or the pressure that drove you to die by suicide was connected to the line of duty, and that was a bar that was common in law enforcement agency benefits packages all over the United States, including the Capitol Police.

I worked with Senator Duckworth and Senate colleagues, and we got that law changed, so that law enforcement officers who died by suicide after a traumatic event, such as that attack, at least tried to make their case that that death was not in vain, but it was a death that was connected to your law enforcement career.

And I worked with Serena on that, and we were able to get the law changed in a way that affects Capitol Police and others, that corrects an arcane or old-timey view of what suicide is. I think of Howie every time I walk in that door. That is the door I come into work every day. I have been here for 13 years now. It has been 5 years since January 6, 2021. But when I walk in that door, and Howie Leavengood is not there, I think of him.

Jeffrey Smith was a Metropolitan Police Officer and lived in Fairfax. He was 35 years old. He was a 12-year patrolman with the Metropolitan Police Department. Like Howie, he died shortly after the attack by suicide.

Kyle DeFreytag was a Metropolitan Police officer from Alexandria, VA. He was 26 years old, had his whole life before him. He was a 5-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department. He died after the attack--after defending this Capitol, after defending us--by suicide.

Finally, the fifth was Gunther Hashida, who was also from the Metropolitan Police, lived in Dumfries, VA, longtime resident of Northern Virginia, 43 years old, an 18-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department, also took his life after the attack by suicide.

These were law enforcement officers who are tough people who see a lot of tough stuff, but they weren't prepared. They weren't prepared to deal with an attack on the Capitol motivated by the President of the United States, and that caused them to spiral into a depression. And they are no longer with us as a result.

I just felt like it was important that we tell their stories. They are Virginians. Their families are Virginians. Their names should not be forgotten. Their names should be displayed in the Capitol.

The second thing I want to say is just one memory from that day, and then I will conclude with something that motivates me.

There was only one thing that day that happened that gave me some, I don't know, glimmer of hope, I guess. And I think we all know in life that sometimes in dark moments you can get a glimmer of hope, and sometimes in really good moments there can be a worm in the apple too. It is one of the mysteries of life.

We were gathered in a room after we had been escorted from this Chamber. It was during the thick of COVID, packed full of Senators and staff. Everybody but one person, as I recall, was wearing a mask, packed together for hours and hours and hours. And we were told by Senate officials that the room had been equipped so that we could complete the electoral college count and certification in that room.

And I give some credit to my Senate colleagues because it was interesting, without even discussing it, all 100 people looked at each other and just said: We are not doing it here. You are going to get the Chamber clear. We don't care how many hours it takes, and we are going to go back. And we will complete this business in the full view of the American public. And we did. But we had to wait for hours to do that because it took hours to suppress the attack.

TV monitors were wheeled into the room so that we could watch what was happening. Here was the only thing that happened that put a smile on my face that day, and it made me reflect upon who we are as a nation and gave me a sense of hope.

As the Capitol Police, together with the Metropolitan Police, were battling to stop the attack, a few hours in, the television showed Virginia State police cruisers arriving so Virginia officers could help defend democracy.

And I went over to Senator Warner, my colleague and friend of now 46 years, and I said: Mark, the last time there was an insurrection against the government of the United States, 160 years ago, Virginia was leading it. Virginia was leading it. And here we are, and the Virginia State Police are arriving at the Capitol to save the Union from an insurrection fomented by the Commander in Chief of the United States. There was a tragedy in that statement, but there was also something positive about the arc of history in a Virginia that had led an insurrection and was now so committed to the Union that the first to respond, other than those immediately here on the campus, were the Virginia State Police.

The last thing I will say is this, a motivation, because you have got to look for motivation on days like this, and you have got to look for motivation when you think nobody really cares about what you are talking about.

Senators usually wear Senate pins. I generally don't wear mine because I lose everything, and the Senate pin that we wear is actually kind of valuable. And I was told when I got here, if you lose it, it costs $400 to get a new one. So I have it in a special place, and I don't wear it. And I hope I may be

able to give it to one of my kids one day. But this year, 2026, 250 years of American democracy, I am wearing a different pin, and I have been wearing it most days. And it is the Virginia State seal.

And I will just tell you about the seal quickly. I have talked about it once or twice on the floor, but I just feel motivated to talk about it again.

Mr. President, 250 years of American democracy, July 4, 1776, we know what happened in Philadelphia, the Declaration of Independence. On July 5, 1776, now on the Fourth, there were a lot of Virginians in Philadelphia like Thomas Jefferson and others. The A team was in Philadelphia. The B team was in Williamsburg, the Virginia B team.

And on July 5, 1776, here is what they did: They wrote the Virginia bill of rights and passed it. They passed the Virginia Constitution, the first constitution. They elected Patrick Henry the first Governor of the Commonwealth, and they passed and embraced a draft of a State seal that had been designed in 3 days by a four-member committee, including George Wythe, who was the dean of the William & Mary Law School.

The seal is an interesting one. It is a woman, an Amazon, sometimes controversial because one breast is exposed--it is a figure from Roman mythology--standing on top of a deposed Monarch with his crown falling off with the motto ``Sic Semper Tyrannis,'' ``Thus be it always to tyrants.''

Of all the States, every State has a motto, but Virginia's is the only one that is kind of a warning. New York has a good one, ``Excelsior,'' ``Onward.'' Most States have great--``Ad Astra Per Aspera,'' Kansas, ``To the stars through adversity.'' Michigan is a funny one. ``If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.'' I have always wondered about that one.

But Virginia's motto is the only one kind of a warning or rebuke: ``Thus be it always to tyrants,'' ``Sic Semper Tyrannis.'' And those who put this together, they used the future verb tense. They didn't say: We don't like tyrants; down with tyrants; King George is a tyrant. ``Semper'' means always. They used the future verb tense because they knew tyranny was not something that was just in the rearview mirror.

Virginia has never changed its motto. We have never changed our flag. We continue to hold out the sad reality that tyranny is a fact of human nature, not just a form of government. It is a fact of human nature. And the woman standing atop the tyrant in Roman mythology represents virtue, and virtue is a permanent factor of human nature as well.

The Founders believed we had to be on guard against tyranny. The Founders also believed, with confidence, that virtue would prevail over tyranny but not without our effort. And so standing in a nearly empty Chamber today on a day that has meaning to me, and maybe not to a whole lot of other people, I just say I am motivated by this. I am motivated by the notion that if we put our shoulders to the wheel in this great democracy, at 250, we can win out over tyranny. We can turn this year of 250 into a celebration of American democracy, not a requiem, not a wake, not a saying goodbye but a revitalization.

And with that, I thank you for your indulgence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow Molly Sanders, a proud Navy lieutenant, be granted floor privileges for the duration of her fellowship with my office.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the invasion of Venezuela that the U.S. military carried out last weekend, which will be the subject of a War Powers Resolution vote on Thursday morning.

The news that President Trump had ordered an invasion of Venezuela on Saturday to capture Nicolas Maduro was a shock but not a surprise. Beginning with unauthorized military strikes against unknown persons on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific starting in early September and continuing through the massing of U.S. military assets in the region over the past several months, the likelihood of this happening one day has been obvious to most observers.

In November, I forced a vote on a privileged and bipartisan War Powers Resolution to explicitly prohibit the use of the U.S. military to strike Venezuela without congressional approval. The administration, in my view, has not provided any clear rationale for the military pressure campaign, much less any legal rationale or request for congressional authorization for military action against this sovereign nation.

At that point, all Democrats supported my resolution, and two Republicans did so as well. But there were insufficient votes to pass it.

Many of my colleagues who voted against the resolution at that time told me that they did so because they viewed that President Trump was bluffing, and so they voted no for that reason.

In the aftermath of the invasion with the administration claiming it has the right to seize Venezuelan oil and ``run Venezuela'' under the supervision of the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and State, and with the President threatening to put boots on the ground and even conduct additional strikes to control the country, we can now agree this was no bluff.

After the administration actions over the weekend, which resulted in several injuries to U.S. servicemembers, and we are praying for them and their families for their recovery, Congress needs to tell the American public where it stands. And so on Thursday morning, I will, again, ask my colleagues to vote on a resolution specifying that we shouldn't wage military action within or against Venezuela unless Congress votes to authorize it.

We will have to vote later this week, and there will be a floor block of an hour tomorrow where a number of Senators are scheduled to speak briefly. But I wanted, for personal reasons, to speak at some length tonight about why this is such an important vote for the Senate, for the United States, and for the world.

Speaking as the lead Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee's Western Hemisphere Panel, before the Presiding Officer, who is the chairman of that panel, I know far too well the despotic nature of the Maduro rule in Venezuela, following a similarly despotic rule by Hugo Chavez. I have condemned the Maduro rule for years. I have visited the Venezuelan border in Cocuta, Colombia, and interviewed people exiting the country, from children to senior citizens leaving behind everything they have known because of this despotism.

And together with all of my colleagues in the Senate, I have advocated forcefully for a democratic transition for the electoral malfeasance of the last election where Maduro claimed victory when that was clearly not the case, and I have supported the Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado's efforts, with others, to bring democracy to Venezuela.

So this discussion, this invasion, this vote is not about whether Maduro is a bad guy. He is. But here is the thing: I also speak as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as a military dad, and as a former missionary in Latin America. The use or misuse of American troops is very personal to me, and the role that the United States plays in Latin America has been a lifelong field of both study and lived experience.

Mr. President, I know you served as a missionary in Taiwan.

I was a 21-year-old first-year student at Harvard Law School when I decided I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life and that I needed to take a year away from my studies to figure it out. So I wrote a letter to Jesuit missionaries working in Honduras that had a connection to the high school I attended in Kansas City, and I offered to take a year off school and come volunteer with them.

That is how I found myself in El Progreso, Honduras, in the intense heat in early September of 1980, more than 45 years ago. And during that academic year, I ran a small technical school, teaching teenage boys carpentry and welding. I was a Harvard Law student, but that meant nothing there. But being the son of an ironworker who ran a welding shop, now that was a vocation that the Jesuit missionaries could put to use during my time in Honduras.

I will say that year, from September of 1980 until, essentially, May 1981, was the pivotal year in my life. It put me on a path to serve others. As a civil rights lawyer in Richmond, VA--the capital of the Confederacy--for 18 years and as an elected official for 30 years and counting that year in Honduras, that formation year, that fortified my Catholic faith. It forged my fluency in Spanish. It taught me so many lessons about myself, my country, and the circumstances under which so many people live around this world in settings far less comfortable than what I had been used to growing up. I have drawn on those lessons from that time in Honduras every day for the last 45 years.

The families and students that I worked with showed me how to live with grace under the most challenging conditions. And the Jesuit missionaries--Brother Jaime, Father Patricio, Father Ramon, and others--showed me how serving other people is the path to happiness. I can never repay--never repay--the good they did for me, both my students and their families and these missionaries. But my life has been an attempt to do so ever since.

Now, the lessons of my time in Honduras were not all pleasant. When I was there, Honduras was a military dictatorship, and it was also one of the poorest countries in the Americas, second poorest next to Haiti. People prayed--prayed--for the day when they might have the ability to choose their own leaders, and they also hoped that they might have a future with a path out of the grinding poverty that surrounded them.

But I learned, as a naive 21-year-old, much to my sorrow, of the many instances in which misery throughout the region was spread by actions-- sometimes unintentional but sometimes intentional--of the United States.

When I was in Honduras, the military dictatorship there suppressed political opposition and dissent, and it was supported by the United States in doing so. A long history of U.S. intervention in Honduras to protect the interests of two American fruit companies has left a legacy of corruption and underdevelopment whose consequences are still felt today, 45 years later.

Toward the end of my year in Honduras, the United States began secretly funding a band of rebels in the southern part of the country to wage destabilizing military action against the Government of neighboring Nicaragua, which had been ruled for decades by the U.S.- backed Somoza family dictatorship until it was overthrown in 1979.

Another neighbor just dozens of miles away, maybe 50 miles away--El Salvador--was in the midst of a devastating civil war in which a rightwing government used U.S.-trained military and security personnel to murder civilians, including Catholic bishop Oscar Romero, a few months before I arrived, and four American missionaries--Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan--a few months after I arrived. The civil war in El Salvador led to more than 65,000 civilian deaths.

Yet another neighbor not that far away, Guatemala, had a similar longstanding civil war sadly initiated after the United States engineered the overthrow of a popularly elected government in 1954. That war lasted for nearly 40 years, with as many as 200,000 deaths and nearly a million refugees chased from their homes by the civil war.

The Presiding Officer can think about his time as a young person as a missionary, and he can imagine. This was shocking to me. I had just gone to Honduras to teach carpentry and welding, but the conflicts I described were at my doorstep, with refugees from violence in neighboring countries flooding into Honduras and the murders of bishops, priests, and nuns spreading fear among the Catholic missionaries whom I worked with. And I was confronted with this very painful question: Why was the United States--my country, a nation that I loved--backing military dictatorships and death squads and the plotting of the overthrows of democratically elected governments at the expense of poor people who were just struggling so hard to feed their families?

I came home from that experience a changed person--fortified in my faith life, energized to serve others with my life, but also deeply concerned about the role that the United States was playing in Latin America. This part of our history--the part that I have given, the Reader's Digest version here in the last few minutes--isn't taught a lot at home because we have some reason to be ashamed of it, but it is remembered very clearly and very well throughout Latin America. They view a U.S. military invasion of a sovereign nation today to seize its oil as a sinister repeat of decades, generations, and even centuries of a painful past.

The Trump administration released a National Security Strategy in early December--barely more than a month ago--and it announced a clear plan for the Americas. I am going to quote from it:

After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and

enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence

in the Western Hemisphere and to protect our homeland and our

access to key geographies throughout the region.

The strategy prioritizes the Western Hemisphere first among all regions of the world, and I am going to get to a complement of that toward the end of my comments.

But let's talk about the Monroe Doctrine because that is not so well- known, and when the President and his

team say that we want to reassert the Monroe Doctrine, it is really important to discuss what that is.

The Monroe Doctrine goes all the way back to the 1820s. In that doctrine, Virginian President James Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, declared the Americas were now off-limits to European colonization or interference. Remember, most nations in the Americas had had a prehistory after their indigenous history of European colonization. So the Monroe Doctrine was like, you know, a ``No Trespassing'' sign or a ``Do Not Disturb'' sign, where America said the Americas would now be off-limits to European colonization or interference.

While it was a foreign policy doctrine about the Americas, it wasn't fundamentally about building good relationships with nations in the Americas. Rather, it was about keeping Europe away. Initially, Latin American nations appreciated it. They appreciated the United States clearly stating that European colonizers could no longer have free rein to continue the past practices that had used the Americas as a region for plunder or slavery. But over the years, after the initial declaration in the 1820s, Latin American leaders also came to see that the Monroe Doctrine had evolved to being more about American dominance than American partnership.

In the early 1900s, President Teddy Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to also assert the right of the United States to intervene in the domestic politics of all nations in the region. It was called the Roosevelt Corollary, and it declared that economic challenges in Venezuela threatened the nation's economy--the economy of Venezuela-- thereby increasing the likelihood of its default on international debts.

How ironic that Venezuela thus became the first use of the Monroe Doctrine to justify U.S. intervention into another nation's domestic affairs rather than just, as it had been previously, a defensive doctrine to ward off European interference. The people of Venezuela know this history very, very well even if Americans have largely forgotten it. The reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to now allow the U.S. intervention led to escalating U.S. military intervention in the region. Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic all were affected in the first half of the 20th century. During World War II, the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine to occupy Greenland once Germany occupied Denmark.

In more recent years, under the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries, President Eisenhower authorized U.S. assistance for the overthrow of a democratically elected Government in Guatemala and for a coup against the Government of Brazil. President Kennedy, as we know, authorized a U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba. President Johnson authorized U.S. troops to invade the Dominican Republic. President Nixon authorized U.S. support to assist the toppling of the democratically elected Government of Chile. President Reagan secretly funded the Contra war against Nicaragua and also authorized an invasion of Grenada, and the first President Bush authorized the invasion of Panama.

You will notice that I mention both Democratic and Republican Presidents. The Monroe Doctrine was not the fault of one party or the other. It was an attitude of the United States that stretched for nearly 200 years that we had the right to interfere with and dominate the politics of nations in our region.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a few decades of relative calm in the relations of the United States and its neighbors, and we turned our attention to the Global War on Terror. But now, after many years when the phrase ``Monroe Doctrine,'' I am sure, was not even mentioned once on the floor of the U.S. Senate, President Trump now pledges to revitalize the doctrine of American dominance in the hemisphere and go even further.

In his own words, ``[T]he Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the Donroe Doctrine.''

Now, I am not sure which marketing department came up with the name ``Donroe Doctrine.'' It sounds sort of comical, but it is anything but humorous to Latin American nations whose history books are filled with example after example of the United States using our military to interfere in their domestic politics.

And that brings us to President Trump's invasion of Venezuela to arrest and depose its de facto leader and seize its oil.

Again, Nicolas Maduro was an incompetent and barbaric dictator who stole the last election just less than 2 years ago, which he clearly lost by every internal and international count, and he has presided over the economic collapse of a nation that was recently one of the most prosperous countries in the entire region, but multiple things can be true.

It is also true that President Trump's haphazard initiation of a unilateral war against the country of Venezuela is, in my view, a mistake of historic proportions that will make our country and our region and our world less secure. I view this invasion in the same way that many warned about the U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam or in the initiation of the war in Iraq in terms of the potential negative consequences that it will likely deliver.

I hope to convince my colleagues, whether they believe the war is a good or a bad idea, to at least stand up and support the constitutional requirement that the United States shouldn't be waging a war without a vote of Congress.

I assert that the military action against Venezuela is illegal, is confusing in its true motives, is harmful to U.S. interests in the region, is a dangerous precedent if when followed by our adversaries is unnecessarily and suspiciously secret, is a frightening return to forever wars, is unpopular, and, finally, is profoundly disrespectful to U.S. troops.

First, the war is illegal. As I have argued on the floor of this body since I came here in 2013 and as I have asserted face-to-face with Presidents of both parties, only Congress can declare war or, in the modern phrase contained in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, ``authorize the use of military force in hostilities.'' That legislation was passed in response to the abuses of President Nixon both initiating war without notice to Congress, and it builds off one of the clearest parts of the Constitution: Congress and only Congress initiates war, and once initiated, the President and only the President as Commander in Chief is charged with the duty to execute the declared war.

The text of the Constitution is so clear. The Constitution has some phrases that are superclear: that you have got to be 35 years old to be President. Then there are other phrases that are a little vague. What is ``due process of law''? What is ``cruel and unusual punishment''? So you can put the phrases of the Constitution on a spectrum between extremely clear and somewhat ambiguous to be determined under the standards of the time.

When it comes to warmaking, the Founders of this Nation were very, very clear, and the meaning of the Constitution is not just in the text of that document. It was additionally clarified by the notes taken during the debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, by the Federalist Papers that were written by those involved in drafting the Constitution, and in correspondence between the Founders who were there which described what they were trying to accomplish. Congress declares war. The President executes upon that declaration.

Now, the Presiding Officer knows that the narrow exception has already been understood. The President as Commander in Chief has the power and the duty to defend the Nation for ongoing or imminent attack without asking for prior congressional approval, but any war that is offensive in nature or that would be sustained beyond that initial point of self-defense needs congressional authorization.

This administration has advanced no credible legal basis, under either American or international law, to invade Venezuela, to depose its leadership, to seize its oil, to run its country. There is a legal analysis issued by the administration to justify military strikes against boats in international waters. The administration has been unwilling--in a very rare instance--has been unwilling to share that rationale publicly. And I know why because I have read it. It is laughably weak, and the administration knows this.

As evidence of the administration's own insecurity about its own legal rationale, in October, the U.S. military carried out a strike against a submersible in international waters, and there were two survivors. The U.S. having slaughtered struggling survivors in September made a different decision in October to rescue the two survivors.

Well, they were narcotraffickers, so we would bring them to court, right? No. After rescuing survivors, the U.S. military returned these alleged narcotraffickers to their own countries for release rather than prosecuting them. Why? Because the U.S. understood that the flimsy legal rationale allowing targeting these individuals would not stand up if scrutinized in an American court.

While I am not at liberty to share the many weaknesses of the classified legal opinion, it does not violate any rule of classification to say what is not in the opinion--what is not in that 40-page legal document. There is nothing whatsoever about the legal rationale in that document that would allow for military action against the sovereign nation of Venezuela or any sovereign nation.

Now, the assertion of the administration that this is not military action but merely a law enforcement operation doesn't pass the smell test, and it doesn't pass the laugh test. The coordinated military mission--massing of ships and aircraft, deployment of forces on land, dropping of bombs, and seizures of a country's main political leader-- is the very definition of hostilities.

The Saturday operation alone involved more than 150 aircraft-- fighters, bombers, surveillance platforms, drones, refueling tankers-- launched from at least 20 air bases across the Western Hemisphere. The killing of untold Venezuelan civilian and military personnel--the number is 80 and climbing by the U.S. Armed Forces--is hostilities. American troops were wounded in this invasion. That is the essence of hostilities.

Deep concerns about the legality of this military operation are widespread not only in this Chamber, but in the Pentagon, where leaders have been forced into retirement for raising questions about the legality of these actions among the American public and among American allies, some of whom have stopped sharing intelligence with the United States in these operations because they do not believe they are lawful. Unless and until the invasion of Venezuela and the ongoing operation to seize its oil and run its government are authorized by Congress, it is illegal.

Second, the reason for this war is deeply confusing to the American public because of the mixed messages sent by the administration. If you listen to Secretary Rubio, it is about countering narcotrafficking. If you listen to other officials, it is about changing the Venezuelan regime. If you listen to President Trump, it is about seizing oil or carrying out a ``Donroe Doctrine'' that allows the U.S. military to smash and grab anything we want anywhere in the hemisphere.

Why can't the administration get its story straight? We know narcotrafficking is a horrible scourge responsible for massive deaths in the United States and elsewhere, but President Trump has shown, as I have earlier discussed on the floor of the Senate, by the pardons of narcotraffickers Ross Ulbricht and Juan Orlando Hernandez, that he cares little about narcotrafficking.

The charges handed down against Nicolas Maduro--if you read the charging document--are eerily similar--eerily similar--to the same charges that were successfully prosecuted beginning in Donald Trump's first term when the case initiated against Honduran former President Hernandez, using his position as a head of state to manage a massive operation smuggling narcotics into the United States. But President Trump recently pardoned Hernandez in a shocking move. That proves that fighting narcotrafficking is not the goal here.

The likely goal is President Trump's desire to seize control of Venezuela's oil reserves. That explains his admission that while he chose not to notify Congress of the invasion in advance, he did disclose his war intent to his friends at American oil and gas companies. This is a war for plunder to benefit campaign contributors, and that explains why the President did not want to seek congressional authorization for this invasion and occupation.

As the father of a marine, what American parent wants to send their son or daughter to war risking injury and death to seize the oil of another nation on behalf of billionaire oil companies?

Third, this attack endangers American influence in the region by pushing nations away from the United States and toward China. We have seen in recent years, in the Foreign Relations Committee and others, how China has ramped up investments in the Americas. They have taken advantage of our focus in the Middle East to expand their influence in our neighborhood.

Many of the Chinese investments are hollow--even predatory--and as I have dialogued with heads of state throughout the Americas, one thing they often say to me is: We would rather deal with you guys than China, but they are offering help, and you are usually nowhere to be found.

But faced with the choice between a Chinese offer of partnership of some doubtfulness and an American ``Donroe Doctrine'' that asserts dominance, no self-respecting sovereign nation will knuckle under and agree to be subservient. The United States has slashed USAID and other humanitarian and civil society programming in the region. We have imposed massive tariffs that hurt the American economy but also hurt the economies of our American neighbors.

And now, after slashing humanitarian programs and after imposing tariffs, we assert the right to invade at will to seize the assets of sovereign nations in the Americas. We will find ourselves--if we pursue this path--with less and less influence in the region closest to our shores, and our chief adversary is likely to grow stronger.

As evidence of this, the Chinese Government put out a Latin America strategy document just last month, focusing on how American overreach and dominance is opening up opportunities for China in the Americas. This invasion plays right into China's hands.

Another downside of the attack is this: Increased chaos and instability always leads to more migration. Attacking Venezuela and, as President Trump has suggested, other nations in the region is likely to lead to even more desperate people crossing borders to immigrate, including to the United States. This has happened throughout history and will only continue and accelerate if the United States continues to carry out these military operations.

Fourth, the invasion of Venezuela by American troops to topple its leadership and seize its oil sets a dangerous precedent in the world that will be used by power-hungry dictators who are adversaries of the United States. If the U.S. can invade Venezuela, what is wrong with Russia invading Ukraine? What is wrong with China invading Taiwan? If the U.S. gets to dominate the Western Hemisphere, what is wrong with Iran trying to dominate Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen? If we can interfere to destabilize Venezuela's leadership, is it acceptable for foreign nations to interfere without consequence in American domestic politics?

The entire international legal order that the U.S. has led in the construction since World War II has been based on respect for the sovereignty of nations and the objection of those who would violate that principle. That respect has worked wonders for the U.S. economy and our national security, and it has also helped advance our interests across the world. The United States--as I have indicated--we have not been perfect in upholding the principle--and others certainly haven't either--but the principle is worth upholding.

The U.S. plays a leadership role for good or bad by our actions. There is no nation whose leadership example is as closely watched and followed as the U.S. example. The invasion of Venezuela under these circumstances has given a green light to more invasions by others in a way that is bad for the world and will harm U.S. interests as well.

Fifth, the invasion of Venezuela and the boat strikes preceding it have been suspiciously secret, with critical details shielded by public scrutiny by either Congress or the American public. The first boat strike occurred on September 2. So we are now more than 4

months into this operation, close to 200 people have been killed in dozens of strikes on open waters and the Venezuelan invasion.

American troops have been injured. The administration has removed the head of state, intends to seize its oil assets, proclaim that we will run Venezuela for an indeterminate future, weighed in on who should and shouldn't be entrusted with leading the Venezuelan Government. And yet there has not been a single public hearing--not been a single public hearing--in the House or Senate about this major military campaign. This is shocking. The administration has only been willing to offer limited information on occasion to Members in classified settings. It has offered next to nothing to the American people.

Because I can review material in classified settings, I know that the legal rationale for the boat strikes is deeply inadequate and flawed. But I can't fully explain why, even to Virginians whose kids are deployed in this military operation, because the rationale is only available to a limited number of Members in a classified setting.

I have had sessions in the SCIF about the targeting criteria for who gets bombed in international waters. And I would say that those criteria contain at least one critical flaw that I believe would be shocking to the American public, but I can't describe it because I only know about it from review of classified material.

The United States, at the President's say-so, has declared war against a number of groups. I can't say what the number is, and I can't say who the groups are because that has never been made public and it has only been made available in classified settings.

That is pretty important because, when the U.S. declares war publicly against an enemy, those connected to ISIS or al-Qaida are on notice that if they act with those groups, the U.S. has put a military target on them.

But if we declare war against a secret list of organizations whose identity can only be known by a tiny handful of people who have privileges to visit a classified facility in the U.S. Capitol, then many people are carrying out activities in their lives without knowing--without any knowledge--that the U.S. has put a target on them and rendered them eligible for attack.

The Presiding Officer may have seen this as well. I have seen the video of America striking shipwrecked sailors on September 2, who didn't even know that President Trump had placed them on a secret list to be targeted. But I can't fully describe it because the administration, while proudly and immediately displaying the video of the first strike on that boat, the strike that destroyed their ship, chose to hide the fact of that second strike and hide the video of the murder of those two shipwrecked sailors, even from Congress, and from the American public for nearly 2 months and continues to hide that shocking evidence from public scrutiny, which raises the question: If the administration believes this cause is so righteous, is so legal, is so necessary, is so in the national interest, what is it afraid of?

Put the facts before Congress and the American public in a public setting where they can be subjected to the questions that should precede U.S. involvement in a military campaign of this kind.

And if my colleagues in this body believe these actions are justified, well, what are they afraid of? Why haven't the Armed Services or Foreign Relations or Intelligence committees in either House, under the Republican leadership of those committees, called for even a single public hearing on this important matter?

They have been repeatedly asked to do so. They have been repeatedly urged to do so and have, thus far, resisted.

But America and Americans shouldn't tolerate a war waged in the dark in which oil executives get better notice of our military actions than Members of Congress or everyday Americans.

Sixth, the invasion of Venezuela represents a dangerous slide to the kind of forever wars, or permanent war footing, that this President specifically campaigned against. In the first year of his second term in office, President Trump has carried out unilateral and unauthorized military hostilities against or within Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and boats in international waters.

And the Venezuela invasion comes with a pledge to occupy the country, seize its oil, for some indeterminate future. But that is not all. The President has also strongly suggested the possibility of using the American military against other nations: Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Greenland, and our NATO ally Denmark. Where does this end? If this President, or any President, can wage war on multiple continents in secret and without congressional notice, consultation, debate, or vote, we will have transformed the United States from the world's chief diplomat--an important position that we achieved when President Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Russo- Japanese War.

Since that time, the United States has been viewed as the chief diplomatic nation in the world. But if we can now wage war on Presidential say-so in secret, without congressional authorization, anywhere in the world, we will have transformed the United States from the world's chief diplomat into the world's chief bully. Is that what the American people want?

Seventh, the invasion of Venezuela without congressional authorization is deeply unpopular in Virginia and the Nation. Polling suggests that even after the exemplary performance of American troops, 63 percent of Americans do not believe the United States should have invaded Venezuela without congressional approval.

I have had conversations around Virginia, a very pro-military State, about this very topic, and in those conversations what I have noticed is this: The opposition to war in Venezuela without congressional authorization is not about article I versus article II powers; it is not about a constitutional abstraction or theory of government; it is about an instinctive wisdom among the American people that says war should be a last resort, and it shouldn't be entered into upon the say- so of one person--it is too big a decision for one person--but instead should only proceed after careful deliberation by a President and by the people's elected Congress.

And let's be clear, the American people are not asking for more wars right now. They are telling us that housing costs too much, that food costs too much, that healthcare costs too much, that childcare costs too much, that energy costs too much. They want us to fix the American economy, stop the tariffs and the chaos, make everyday life better for them.

This endless foreign adventurism, which was precisely what President Trump campaigned against, is very likely helping his own pockets and helping out oil companies and cronies and donors, but it is doing nothing for everyday folks. Instead, they are seeing higher costs, fewer jobs, slower growth, and a distracted President focused on air strikes and ballrooms.

It is long past time for the President and all of us to work on what he promised as a candidate instead of dismissing everyday folks' affordability concerns as a hoax.

Finally, the invasion of Venezuela and threats of unilateral military action against others is profoundly disrespectful of our Nation's military. Our troops aren't a palace guard to be used by a President in chaotic ways around the globe or deployed against Americans at home. That is not what they are for.

The juvenile decision to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War, completely without legal authority and sure to be abandoned as soon as this administration exits the stage, sends a loud message to our troops and their families. People like my oldest son volunteer to serve because they love this country and they want to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They take that oath just as we do.

People of integrity don't see military service as measured by how much they wage war against others; they see it as a patriotic commitment to defend the United States and our allies. And a nation committed to ill-conceived and secretive wars, waged without adequate debate and consideration, will see over time a decreased willingness to serve by those whom we would most welcome as our military leadership.

I am not aware of any military service in Donald Trump's family. I wish he

would come to Virginia and talk to military families about what it means to wonder whether your kid or your spouse might get sent to war tomorrow. I have had those conversations with Virginians, both as Governor, where I was the titular commander of the Virginia Guard as we deployed thousands and thousands to Iraq and Afghanistan between 2006 and 2010, and, in the years since, family members repeatedly deployed during the 20-year global war on terror. These families are now hoping for some respite.

I have had these conversations with Virginians serving on warships in the Red Sea while getting fired on by Houthi militias, and I have had these conversations with Virginians whose families are part of the military assets now deployed in the Caribbean and Pacific and poised to strike Venezuela and other Latin American nations.

Just at church recently, somebody came up to me and said: Don't let this President send my kid to war.

Our military signs up for a tough job. When they volunteer in this all-volunteer military, they are signing up for a tough job, and they are always ready to do it. And when we ask them to do it, they always do it in ways that are so impressive. But they deeply want civilian leadership of this Nation to be wise in decision-making about how to use military force, wise when making the decision about when or how to put their lives on the line. And wise decision-making requires careful deliberation and debate, not impulsive action such as this Venezuelan invasion, where we now find it hard to answer even the most basic questions about what comes next: How long will we be there? What is the goal? Who will be in charge?

If we can't answer those questions, do we have a right to order these young men and women to risk their lives in military actions without a real plan?

Let me conclude with a positive message--positive message--about President Trump's national security strategy and a final plea to my Senate colleagues. I believe that this Trump national security strategy, which I believe was issued on the first Thursday in December, is right in placing the Americas as the top priority. If you read both the introduction and then the portions of the strategy that really get into the regions of the world, this is the only strategy that has been produced during the entire time in the Senate that puts the Americas and the Western Hemisphere as item No. 1, rather than the last item. And I think the President is right, and I applaud him and his team because we have ignored our own neighborhood for so long--for so long. And when we have focused on it, it has usually been more about keeping other nations away than it has been about building the partnerships that will really strengthen the Americas.

The Trump administration's decision to make the Americas the top priority makes it unique among any recent administration that I have been familiar with, and if it is done correctly, I believe it offers us a great path forward to deepen the ties among the more than 1 billion people who are Americans--North, South, or Central--who live in this hemisphere.

And as the chair and ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I say getting this right is critical to American well- being because today certainly, but even going forward, how can we match up economically with nations like China or India, each with more than a billion citizens?

The productivity of the more than 340 million Americans is second to none, but at some point--at some point--the scale of our chief competitors becomes really hard for us to match. But if you think about the Americas with 1-plus billion and if we strengthen ties throughout the Americas--let's call it an ``Americas First'' policy--strengthening ties in security and education and trade and diplomacy and humanitarian assistance and democracy promotion, we can more than match the might of the world's most populous countries, even our fiercest competitors like China.

But we won't achieve it--we won't achieve it--through dominance or invasion. We have tried it before. We tried it for 200 years, and it hasn't worked. It produces hostility, suspicion, resistance. It chases nations that could be friends, that should be friends, into the arms of adversaries. But we can achieve much through respectful partnerships and by giving the attention to our America neighbors that we have often reserved solely for nations in Europe or the Middle East.

We have tried throughout our history this positive approach on brief occasions--FDR's Good Neighbor Policy, President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress--but we have too often tried it for a short period and then lapsed back into a failed Monroe Doctrine mindset.

President Trump's instinct to prioritize the Americas is the right one; it is the right one. But doing it the right way and not repeating the mistakes of the past is the key to making it a success.

And finally, a plea to my Senate colleagues: The vote we will have Thursday on our bipartisan resolution to say no to war in Venezuela without congressional authorization is actually a vote about many things. It is a short resolution, like a page and a half, but it is a vote about many things. It is about Venezuela. It is about war. It is about the use of U.S. troops. It is about our complicated history in the region. It is about the example we set and our position in the world. But it is also, ultimately, about what it is to be a U.S. Senator.

In recent months, this body has rejected my resolutions saying that the Senate should have a role, if we go to war, with Iran or Venezuela or launch strikes on unknown boats in international waters.

I have put those votes on the table, and we have had votes on them. And the Senate has opposed my resolutions. The Senate has actually voted in favor of its own irrelevance, saying that it didn't need to be consulted about war.

We have the opportunity to change this. We have the opportunity to say forcefully: Mr. President, you are the article II Commander in Chief of this country, and we want you to inhabit every square centimeter of power the Constitution gives you. But we are the article I branch, and the Constitution demands that you need to consult us before taking America to war.

So cast a vote in accordance with the Constitution, and that honors the relevance of the U.S. Senate. If you believe that a war to topple the Venezuelan Government and seize its oil is justified, you should be willing to vote to support it. You should be willing to introduce an authorization for use of military force, put it on the floor, and advocate for it. And if you don't believe a war against Venezuela is a good idea--as I don't--you should be willing to vote against it. But don't outsource this power, carefully vested in the article I branch by our Founders, to this President or to any President.

We were all sent here for a reason. We were all sent here to show courage. We were sent here to stand up for our constituents and our troops and the Constitution, and there is no more important power for Congress to maintain than the power to send our sons and daughters into war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, prior to my remarks, I would ask permission that, upon the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Shaheen be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes before the initiation of the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to express deep concern and frustration over President Trump's decision to approve the sale of advanced Nvidia H200 AI chips to the People's Republic of China.

I appreciate the fact that my colleague Senator Coons is on the floor

because I will conclude with a discussion of a bipartisan bill that Senator Ricketts and Senator Coons have introduced in the Senate that, I think, is a very important piece of legislation.

I am worried that the transfer of these chips will compromise U.S. security and enable the People's Republic of China to catch up in one area where the United States has a significant and a very qualitative advantage over the PRC.

For decades, under administrations of both parties, the United States has adhered to a simple principle: We do not sell our most advanced security-critical technology to adversaries. That principle exists for a reason. Advanced semiconductors, like Nvidia's H200 chip, are not consumer gadgets. They are matters of national security. They are the foundation of the future of warfare. They are our edge--the United States' edge--in the development of the technologies of the future. Right now, that future is up for grabs. We protect our chips because they preserve America's advantage in space, cyberspace, and, importantly, as a nuclear deterrence.

During President Trump's first term, the administration clearly understood this, and they expanded export controls on semiconductor technologies to China, placing strict controls on firms like Huawei. At the start of this administration, again, President Trump publicly embraced the longstanding policy: that export controls were treated as national security decisions, as they should be.

But that consensus, apparently, has not lasted. It was challenged very aggressively by corporate interests, most notably by Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, who is a frequent presence at the White House.

The status quo was also challenged by President Trump's sort of self- proclaimed AI and crypto czar, billionaire David Sacks, who argued that the United States should give sensitive articles to China in order to make China dependent upon American technology.

That argument sounds clever, but it isn't. By that logic, should we sell China F-35 fighter jets, advanced missile systems, top-tier satellite technologies? Of course, we shouldn't. We don't preserve our leverage by handing our rivals the very tools that they need to close the gap they have with us. We preserve leverage by maintaining advantages that they can't replicate quickly or cheaply.

And they are attempting to close this gap by cheating. The Justice Department just announced, within the last few days--within the last few days--a dismantling of a major China-linked AI smuggling network, Operation Gatekeeper, seizing more than $50 million worth of these Nvidia chips illegally exported to China. They are trying to steal this technology, reverse engineer, and take the intellectual property to eliminate this edge that we have.

The administration initially claimed it would only permit the sales of inferior chips, such as the Nvidia H20, not the H200, which is hardware explicitly described as degraded and limited, but China declined. They waited, believing that President Trump would fold, and that is what happened. President Trump, within the last week, has announced that he plans to approve the sale of the H200, one of Nvidia's most powerful AI chips, second only to the very top of its product line.

Let's be clear in what this chip is. The H200 is used to train and deploy frontier AI systems--systems that U.S. national security Agencies have long warned have numerous military and intelligence applications.

Previous administrations, working with allies, imposed export controls precisely--precisely--because they worked. China fell behind. Even the CEO of China's leading AI firm has admitted publicly that the access to advanced chips is their biggest bottleneck.

President Trump is now solving this problem for China. The administration claims that, in exchange--in exchange--the United States will receive a share of the revenue--25 percent of the sales is what we are being told--but that admission should alarm us. Decisions that were once made purely on our national security priorities are now apparently up for sale, and the administration's justification that this will somehow keep China hooked on U.S. technology doesn't withstand normal scrutiny.

We have got decades of evidence that China basically steals foreign technology as fast as it can. They won't be hooked on these chips. They will take these chips, reverse engineer them, produce their own, and wipe out the edge that we now have with China in this critical defense technology.

Now, in less than a week after President Trump's announcement, one of the deal's leading proponents, David Sacks, is already starting to backtrack on his theory that we should give these articles to China. Let's look at the facts surrounding the timing of this announcement.

Nvidia's CEO has attended $1 million-a-plate fundraisers for the President. His company donated to build the President's ballroom, and now, after months of lobbying and contributions, Nvidia got what it wanted.

I am very, very nervous that the President is bartering away this edge and may barter away other edges to those who are lobbying and contributing to him. This is a pattern that we have seen of transactional politics jeopardizing our security.

China is reaping the rewards of this. They are already leading or are rapidly catching up in so many critical industries. Why would we give up an edge on this one?

The American people are watching this play out, and they are particularly concerned about China, about China's advances, and about giving up the edge we have over China in this key area. That is why I have signed on, with many in this body--I think there are now 10 cosponsors, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans--to Senators Ricketts and Coons' SAFE CHIPS Act, which would insist upon rigorous export controls over these chips, particularly as they might be transferred to China, the People's Republic of North Korea, Iran, and Russia. The number of bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation and of some similar legislation that is offered by other Members, by Senator Banks and Senator Collins, is growing.

I urge my colleagues to get on board with this legislation and make sure that we don't harm our national security by transferring technologies of such incredible importance to our country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Mark Warner, I rise today to honor the life and service of Retired U.S. Navy CAPT William ``Bill'' Crow, a man whose contributions to our Nation's defense and to the shipbuilding industry were matched only by the warmth, generosity, and joy he brought to everyone who knew him.

Bill was born on December 20, 1957, in Morganfield, KY, a place he loved dearly and held closed to his heart despite his wide-ranging travels.

After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1980, Bill embarked on a distinguished 30-year career as a naval officer, serving in various assignments including as chief engineer on USS Pharris (FF- 1094), assistant operations officer of Commander Destroyer Squadron Twenty-Six, chief engineer on USS Briscoe (DD-977), material officer for Commander Destroyer Squadrons Ten and Two, executive officer of USS Peterson (DD-969), commanding officer of USS Austin (LPD-4), and training and readiness assistant chief of staff for Commander of Amphibious Group Two. He held shore commands at Naval Station Norfolk, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, and became the first Commanding Officer of Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story. Throughout his naval career, Bill was a dedicated public servant and a great leader, mentor, and friend.

Following his retirement from the Navy, Bill continued his service as president of the Virginia Ship Repair Association for 13 years. In that role, he represented hundreds of member companies across Hampton Roads, strengthening a vital industry that supports both Virginia's economy and our national security. His leadership left a lasting impact on the ship repair community, congressional leaders, and the defense industrial base.

Bill lived a life of faith and loved his family and friends deeply. He was incredibly proud of his children John, Karen, Sara, and Kevin and shared a beautiful marriage with his beloved wife of 40 years, Jeanne. Bill made friends with everyone he met and shared his joy widely especially with his booming laugh. Bill spent the last nights of his life surrounded by the family who brought him joy through his entire life.

Bill's passing is a loss to all who loved him but also to the Commonwealth of Virginia. His dedication to public service, community involvement and joyful life lived on principle were a blessing.

We remember Bill today not only for his distinguished service to the Navy and the ship repair industry, but for his faith, his family, his friendships, and the joy he brought to all who knew him. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. President, I rise today with colleagues to talk about the vote we will cast tomorrow on extending Affordable Care Act premium tax credits.

We missed an opportunity in June. In June, the reconciliation bill that was passed by the Senate contained $1 trillion of tax cuts for people who are in the 1 percent--the Nation's wealthiest, who didn't need a tax cut--but we refused to extend premium tax credits so that 20-plus million Americans could afford health insurance.

Just by order of magnitude, we could have extended the tax credits as is for 10 years at a cost of $350 billion. That is not inexpensive, but it is one-third of the cost of the tax credits that we handed away to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country, who don't need it.

I can assure you that my Virginians need these ACA premium tax credits. If we do not extend the tax credits in the simple bill the Democrats have on the floor tomorrow, the best estimates are that 94,000 Virginians will lose their enrollment in health insurance through our ACA Marketplace. Of those 94,000, 50,000 will go uninsured. They won't be able to find any other insurance.

Because the Affordable Care Act carries with it funding for States, Virginia stands to lose $295 million in Federal funding, have a significant hit of more than $400 million to the State's gross domestic product, lose about 3,500 jobs, and also lose around $31 million in State and local tax revenue.

But the numbers aren't what is important; the experiences of people and the fear and anxiety that they are telling us about are what is important.

Christine Casey in Crozet, VA--her premiums will go from $485 a month to $1,730 a month--more than tripling.

Paula Graham in Virginia Beach--her premium is going to go from $285 a month to $1,018 a month--more than quadrupling.

I have story after story after story from Virginians in all parts of the Commonwealth--rural, urban, and suburban, youngsters and seniors, people who left a job they didn't like but they had to have because it provided health insurance, to start a business where they can afford insurance on the exchange, and they now find it unaffordable. That not only affects healthcare, but it may require them to give up on the economic dream they had and go back to a job they don't like just so they can afford insurance.

So it is my hope, together with my colleagues, that we do the right thing, that we extend the Affordable Care Act tax credit support for a period of time--3 years--where then members of the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee and other committees can grapple with long-term solutions to issues like pharmacy, affordability, and other important things that we have shown we can work together on on a bipartisan basis.

But there is no reason at this late moment to consign, right before the holidays, Virginians and Americans who are already suffering through higher energy prices, higher costs for building supplies, higher costs for toys for Christmas, for everything else in their lives--to consign them, probably in the most important expenditure in their lives, to dramatic increases in costs that will lead many to go without healthcare, thus damaging their own health and the health of their families.

I urge my colleagues to embrace the simple extension of the ACA tax credits in the vote we will have tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Merkley. I have spoken often on this matter on the floor the last few months, and I don't want to belabor a point that I previously made and that I am likely to make again next week when a War Powers Resolution is called forth. The timeliness of this is imminent. The news has just broken today that President Trump has ordered the seizure of an oil tanker-- not a drug-running boat, but an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela has been seized by the U.S. Coast Guard. Tensions are escalating, and the Senate is asleep on this matter.

I want to just ask this question: Why is this war different than all other wars? Why is this war different than all other wars? There are two significant differences that our colleagues need to grapple with. The first is the numerous warnings and indications from this floor but also from the U.S. military leadership and our allies that the war is illegal.

The chief legal advisor of Southern Command in August offered opinions before the boat strikes started in September that to do so without congressional authorization was illegal. The head of Southern Command Admiral Holsey, a decorated 30-plus-year veteran of the Navy, an admiral who was 1 year into a 3-year tenure as leader of the Southern Command, was forced to retire prematurely, and the reporting is consistent that he was forced to retire because he raised questions about the legality of these strikes.

This is not just Democrats on the floor of the Senate questioning the legality of this military operation; it is U.S. military leadership, including high-ranking Pentagon officials who are jeopardizing their career to stand in support of their oath and defend the Constitution and being relieved of command as a result.

Our primary ally in the world, the United Kingdom, has stopped sharing intelligence with the United States on activities in the region because they do not want their intelligence to be used to carry out illegal strikes.

The aftermath of the slaughter of survivors clinging to a shipwreck in international waters has occasioned huge concerns in this country. I represent one of the most military States in the Nation. Many Virginians are deployed on the carrier strike group in the Caribbean, and their families are asking us about the legality of the mission, how long it will last, what is it designed to accomplish, and they are also asking about why the United States, with a human rights ethos, would be proudly slaughtering survivors on the open seas.

The President has said that video could be available to all. Indeed, the President has made the video of the strike available on his social media account, bragging about it, patting himself on the back about it, but now that we are asking for the full video--not just the first strike but the second strike as well where survivors were slaughtered-- suddenly, the Secretary of Defense is walking it back and saying: We need to protect our sources and methods.

You need to protect your sources and methods when you have been turning it into a TV commercial, a social media commercial showing the world about what a tough guy you are. If you are a tough guy and you think you are proud of this, then let the American people see the entire video. Let them watch struggling survivors struck on the high seas in contravention of American and international laws of war.

That is the first reason this war is different from all other wars. The questions raised about their legality are a drumbeat that will not be denied or suppressed.

And the second reason, and then I will hand it to my other colleagues, that this war is different than all other wars is, with all of that that I have shared with you and so much more that I would like to share with you that I can't because what I know I know from being in a classified setting--get this, in the Senate of the United States, the

greatest deliberative body in the world, 95 days into a war, has the Senate Armed Services Committee held a single public hearing about this war? Has the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a single public hearing about this war?

This war is different than all others because at 95 days and counting, 90 people killed, dozens of military strikes, seizing an oil tanker just a few hours ago, the principal committees in this body and in the House charged constitutionally with oversight over matters of war have been hiding their heads in the sand afraid to put on the table publicly before the American public what is at stake and the legal rationale.

If you are doing something you are proud of, you wouldn't need to hide it. If you are doing something you are proud of, you would be glad to have committee hearings and share the story with the American public.

The refusal of this body to take this matter up in any meaningful public forum and to shackle Members of the Senate who know a lot, but we cannot discuss it because all we know we know from classified settings, is a demonstration that this administration knows--knows-- that public scrutiny would make the American public ashamed of what is going on.

We need to make this public; we need to have this debate; and we need the American public to understand what is at stake.

And with that, I applaud my colleague for what he has introduced, and I would like to yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize and honor Stephen A. Edwards as he concludes his tenure as CEO and executive director of the Virginia Port Authority. Mr. Edwards leadership from January 2021 to December 2025 has steered the Port of Virginia to new heights of success, positioning it as one of the most modern, efficient, and future-ready maritime gateways in the United States.

Over the past 5 years, the Port of Virginia has emerged as one of the top container gateways in the United States, ranking as the sixth- busiest container port in the Nation and handling more than 3.28 million TEUs in FY 2023, following a record 3.7 million TEUs in FY 2022 and 3.5 million TEUs in FY 2024, the second-best performance in its history. During this same

period, the Port of Virginia has been consistently cited by customers and industry observers as one of America's best ports. Recent economic impact studies from the College of William & Mary have documented that, in FY 2022, the Port of Virginia and Virginia's maritime industry helped support approximately 565,000 jobs, more than $124.1 billion in spending, and $63 billion in gross State product, and those numbers have grown since then.

Stephen Edwards brought more than two decades of international experience leading major port and terminal operations to the Commonwealth and provided the Port of Virginia with a global perspective on port competitiveness, maritime logistics, and infrastructure delivery. Mr. Edwards advanced a $450 million dredging and widening initiative that upon completion will give the Commonwealth the deepest and widest commercial shipping channels on the East Coast. During his tenure, the Port of Virginia executed the $1.4 billion Gateway Investment Program, and delivered it on time and on budget, to expand capacity, modernize operations, and position Virginia to handle the next generation of ultra-large container vessels. The Port also completed major modernization efforts at Norfolk International Terminals, the Virginia Inland Port, and Richmond Marine Terminal. It doubled its port-wide rail lift capacity to 2 million rail lifts per year, significantly strengthening Virginia's intermodal reach into the Midwest. Finally, it concluded the $220 million transformation of Portsmouth Marine Terminals into a major staging and logistics platform for offshore wind development, supporting Virginia's position as a national leader in clean energy infrastructure.

Throughout his tenure, Mr. Edwards has been widely recognized for his global maritime expertise, his commitment to operational excellence, his stewardship of public resources, and his dedication to strengthening Virginia's position as a premier gateway for international commerce. His staff was also a reliable source of helpful information on the impact of Federal policy changes on the port and quick-turnaround information that helped me and my team advocate effectively for Federal infrastructure resources to come to Virginia.

On behalf of myself and Senator Warner and our colleagues in the Virginia congressional delegation, we wish Stephen A. Edwards well in his future endeavors and thank him for his contributions to Virginia's economic success.

Mr. President, Juan Orlando Hernandez is the former President of Honduras, a country I lived in when I worked with Jesuit missionaries in 1980 and 1981. In a landmark criminal prosecution, he was convicted by a jury in an American Federal court of a massive conspiracy to traffic more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States while he was President of this very poor country.

Trial testimony included a witness who quoted Hernandez saying that he wanted to ``shove drugs right up the noses of the gringos and they're never even going to know it.''

The case against Hernandez began when Donald Trump's Department of Justice prosecuted his brother Tony in 2019. During that trial and the subsequent trial of the former Honduran President in 2024, evidence showed that President Hernandez led a conspiracy to distribute cocaine in the United States, engaged in serious firearms offenses, and collected millions of dollars in bribes from some of the most dangerous criminals in the world, including Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman of the Sinaloa Cartel. These actions coincided with a spike in violent crime in Honduras, rendering it, for a time, the most dangerous nation on Earth, forcing many Hondurans to leave their country, some coming to the United States.

The jury that heard the 3-week-long case against the disgraced former President convicted him on multiple offenses. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Last Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, President Trump announced that he would pardon this notorious narcotrafficking kingpin after just 1 year of serving his 45-year sentence in a Federal penitentiary in West Virginia. Hernandez was released from prison yesterday.

The unconscionable Hernandez pardon followed another Trump pardon of another notorious narcotrafficker. On January 21, 2025, the day after President Trump's inauguration, he pardoned Ross Ulbricht. Ulbricht was convicted in a Federal court after a 4-week jury trial in 2015 of seven serious charges stemming from his operation of a criminal enterprise known as Silk Road. Silk Road, for those not familiar, was an underground online marketplace where drug dealers and other criminals conducted more than $200 million in illegal drug trade and other unlawful activities. Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison by an American jury.

President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop the flow of narcotics into the United States. Yet these two outrageous pardons show that he is willing to excuse and free the worst narcotraffickers in the world. How does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics entering our country?

As someone who knows this region very well because of my time spent living there and my subsequent work in this body as chairman and ranking member of the America subcommittee of Senate Foreign Relations, I can tell you that the decision with respect to ex-President Hernandez will severely tarnish our reputation with our regional friends and allies. Pardoning him sends a message of impunity to those involved in drug trafficking, violent crime, and corruption, which are often clear causes of irregular migration to the United States.

Why pardon a crook who successfully ``shoved'' 400 tons of cocaine right up the ``noses of the gringos''? Why pardon a criminal who established the largest underground illegal drug market in the world? How come President Trump is willing to ignore the American juries who looked at the overwhelming evidence against these narcotraffickers and convicted them?

It is hard to see any reason for these pardons except that Hernandez and Ulbricht are megarich. Their bank accounts are stuffed with millions from illegal activities, which gives them the means and the motive to pump large sums of money into downtown DC to get out of jail.

It is true that a President has expansive pardon authorities. But it is also true that American politicians have been successfully prosecuted for selling pardons. I can't say for sure what is going on here, but the pardon of Hernandez is so bizarre, so counter to the President's stated priorities, that it is difficult for me to fathom any reason why this would happen, other than that someone in the administration was benefiting from it. None of it makes any logical sense.

I hope that our justice system is up to the task of finding the real story behind these pardons, especially since President Trump has a track record of pardoning those who have contributed to him.

Drug kingpins who become rich by profiting off the addictions of everyday Americans shouldn't be allowed to get away scot-free, and Federal officials who facilitate the pardon of these individuals have to be held to account.

Now, the pardon of disgraced former President Hernandez and Russ Ulbricht also raises serious questions about the Trump administration's ongoing war against boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the threatened war against Venezuela. The President and his Secretary of Defense claim that these actions, taken without congressional authorization, are designed to stop narcotics flows into the United States.

Is that the real story?

Even before we get to the question of what is motivating the President to kill unknown civilians on boats and threaten to start a costly war of choice with Venezuela, the serious legal questions about these military actions continue to multiply. The U.S. military began to strike boats in the Caribbean and Pacific on September 2. So far, the United States has engaged in more than 20 known strikes, killing at least 83 people. The first strike happened on a boat in the Caribbean on September 2, based on public reporting.

We now know--we now know--that the initial strike killed most on board, but two survivors were left clinging to wreckage in the water. The U.S. Defense Department rules about war make plain that it is illegal to kill wounded survivors under these circumstances. International law commands the same. Those surviving cannot be wantonly slaughtered. Yet acting pursuant to an alleged order from the Secretary of Defense to ``kill everybody,'' U.S. Special Forces returned to kill the two survivors and hid the fact from Congress and the American public for more than 2 months until enterprising journalists broke the story last week.

On September 10, I led a letter with 25 Senate colleagues directly to the President asking basic questions about the military strikes. We saw no evidence that those on board the boats were combatants or narcotraffickers. We asked for the legal rationale justifying such military action without congressional approval. We inquired why the military was striking boats to kill all on board without interdicting the traffic and using the arrest of the civilians and the seizure of drugs to build criminal cases against drug kingpins. We have not yet received sufficient answers to these basic questions.

The Armed Services Committee held a single classified briefing with administration officials on October 1. As a member of the committee, I attended the briefing. I am not allowed to discuss the facts that I learned in that briefing, but I can say the following: The briefing did not provide us with the legal rationale justifying the strikes. The briefers did not provide us with concrete information about the identity of the individuals killed or the groups targeted with the strikes. The briefers would provide no information about the policy for determining when boats would be attacked rather than interdicted.

Eventually, after weeks and weeks of pressure, the administration finally allowed Senators to read in the SCIF a classified legal rationale it prepared to justify these military actions. By the time Senators--charged with overseeing military operations and providing the budget for national defense--were allowed to review the legal rationale, the strikes had been underway for nearly 2 months.

I reviewed the legal rationale, but because the administration continues to call it classified, I am not allowed to disclose its contents. But I can say the following: The legal rationale is weak. It misinterprets and misuses historical materials regarding the Constitution's allocation of war powers. Its analysis of the domestic law allowing Presidential action is flimsy and would essentially repeal the careful language used in the Constitution and further

clarified in the War Powers Act vesting Congress, the article I branch, with the power to initiate war. And its analysis of international law justifying these military strikes is, frankly, embarrassing.

I can also say this. Nothing in the rationale that Senators can read in a classified setting would allow any military action against the nation of Venezuela. The dangerous nature of the administration's legal rationale and strategy are magnified by a series of events that have happened in the last 3 months. Before the strikes even began, public reporting has it that the senior Judge Advocate General, the chief legal officer in SOUTHCOM, raised serious concerns about the legality of these strikes in August.

On October 1, when the Department of Defense briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee about these strikes, they neglected to bring any uniformed officers or personnel from SOUTHCOM to the briefing. This fact was an immediate red flag and tipoff that there was deep division within the ranks about the legality of this current military operation.

On October 16, the military struck a vessel and recovered two survivors. The survivors were then returned to their homes in Colombia and Ecuador and released.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If they were narcotraffickers, why weren't they arrested and prosecuted? If they weren't narcotraffickers, was a mistake made? Were mistakes made in the other strikes? Were they innocent of wrongdoing? Was the case against them so flimsy that it wouldn't stand up in a court and that is why they were not arrested but instead released in their home countries?

The administration's refusal to share any information about who has been killed, paired with the lack of prosecution of these two individuals, raises serious concerns over exactly who is being killed and why.

In mid-October, SOUTHCOM Commander, Admiral Holsey, announced his premature retirement from the military. A posting to be head of SOUTHCOM would normally go for 3 years. Admiral Holsey was confirmed less than a year ago, and he announced he was prematurely retiring at the peak of his career--a three-star admiral being given command of this important COCOM. Reporting suggests that the retirement followed tense argument between Admiral Holsey, Secretary Hegseth, and Chairman Dan Caine over the legality of these military strikes.

At around the same time, the Pentagon announced that the operational responsibility for the military strikes was being transferred from SOUTHCOM--where their chief legal officer and apparently their Commander had raised questions about the legality of killing civilians on open seas--the responsibility was being transferred from SOUTHCOM to the Special Operations Command. My read of this shift, together with the other evidence about the JAG opinion in SOUTHCOM and the premature retirement of the SOUTHCOM Commander, is that it signifies a deep concern within the Pentagon leadership over the legality of the ongoing military action.

On November 11, we learned that one of our closest allies, the United Kingdom, was restricting traditional information-sharing with the United States in the SOUTHCOM area due to its concerns about the legality of the U.S. military actions. The UK has fought alongside us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world, but they are not participating in intelligence-sharing on this particular American military mission.

Just last week, we learned that the first strike left survivors who were then killed on orders from Secretary Hegseth. The United States has, in the past, prosecuted such actions as war crimes, beginning with the Nuremberg trials and heading forward into the current era.

Over the weekend, President Trump announced that he was closing Venezuelan airspace. Where is his authority to close the airspace over a sovereign nation? Did the Pentagon even know that he would announce such a policy via his social media account? Do we even know whether the airspace has been closed or whether any flights are still occurring?

Most recently--most recently--our Secretary of Defense, who likes to cosplay by giving himself the fake title ``Secretary of War,'' posted an image on Twitter of Franklin the turtle firing missiles at narcoterrorists.

Pete Hegseth's social media account:

For your Christmas wish list. . . . Franklin Targets Narco

Terrorists.

This is the Secretary of Defense, folks, of the greatest Nation on Earth, and to him, this thing is just a big joke.

Think about that. America's Secretary of Defense has enough time on his hands that he and his minions get to come up with cartoon memes to make light of the fact that the United States is killing people in international waters. He is spending his time and energy thinking about cartoons rather than keeping us safe.

I just have to ask this. I was intrigued at this particular detail. There is a great Biblical phrase that says, ``From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.'' So something that you are feeling inside tends to come outside of your mouth even if it is somewhat unintentional.

Why Franklin? I mean, if you are going to do a cartoon--like, Franklin is a Canadian cartoon. Why not Scooby-Doo or Peanuts or, you know, Snoopy? I mean, why Franklin? Of all the cartoon figures that Pete Hegseth could spend time imaging into an AI-generated cartoon making fun of killing narco--why Franklin?

Well, I don't know the answer to that. Secretary Hegseth does. But I have an intuition. Check and see the name of the Special Forces commander whom Secretary Hegseth is now trying to blame for the second strike killing struggling civilians in international waters.

This is no way to wage war. This is no way to wage war.

Orders of dubious legality offered by civilian leaders of questionable judgment are leading to dozens of anonymous deaths, division within the U.S. military, and tension with our allies. The administration's actions are risking the careers of officers and troops, many having served for decades with great distinction, who face the life-and-death question of whether to obey a superior or follow the law--follow the clear law.

All this is occurring with an administration hell-bent on hiding from Congress and the American public the actual facts, strategy, and legal justification for its actions. America is not supposed to be at war based on a Presidential say-so.

Abraham Lincoln said it well when he was a Member of Congress in 1848:

The reason why the Constitution has given the war-making

power to Congress was because Kings had always been involving

and impoverishing their people in wars. This our

[constitutional] 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 should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.

It is past time for Congress to reclaim its role in the decision on whether to initiate war. The Framers in 1787 wouldn't allow George Washington to make these decisions on his own. We shouldn't allow our current President--a man perfectly comfortable pardoning a convicted criminal who boasted about shoving drugs up the gringos' noses--to make such a decision on his own.

It is time for Congress to reassert the role that was handed to us in a sacred way in the Constitution in 1787 and exercise oversight over this mushrooming military operation in the Americas.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am thrilled to recognize the centennial of Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The American Friends of Hebrew University, AFHU, is helping to celebrate 100 years of accomplishment and toast the next generation of visionaries who will carry forward this tradition to the next century and beyond.

Hebrew University is home to over 23,000 students and 1,400 researchers across six campuses. Faculty and alumni have received 9 Nobel Prizes and registered more than 11,000 patents. Its impact has shaped not just Israel but the whole world, including in Virginia through the Mid-Atlantic Branch of AFHU. Benefactors of HU and this celebration include so many whose legacy can be seen across Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic region: the family and descendants of Charles E. Smith, the Theodore and Annette Lerner Family Foundation, Sheryl and Bradley Schwartz, Susie and Michael Gelman, and many more.

I would be especially remiss not to recognize my friends Bill and Bobbie Kilberg. Bill is president of the mid-Atlantic region of the AFHU and a member of the board of governors, among many other stops in his legal and business career. Bobbie is president and CEO emerita of the Northern Virginia Technology Council, an entity that has done so much to shape the Virginia economy of today.

As I reflect on the interweaving strands of academic excellence embodied by Hebrew University and the economic and technological innovation for which Israel is renowned, I see a story that has played out in Virginia and elsewhere. Virginia's technology economy has blossomed in just a few short decades, largely due to its first-rate higher education sector, careful attention to cultivating a strong workforce, and the efforts of organizations like NVTC and people like Bill and Bobbie to cultivate those resources.

Today, it is home to innovative companies, large and small, and exports its goods and services to the world through an international airport and international seaport. We are economically stronger when we invest in our people. Our people are stronger when we invest in education and workforce.

The change that Hebrew University has seen over the past century is profound, in some ways miraculous. Your steadfast support has produced this positive change, and that change continues today. You have my fondest wishes for the celebration of the century, and I look forward to what the next century will bring.

Mr. President, I rise together with my colleagues from Maryland and Hawaii to celebrate 50 years of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I will not speak long because I have a separate matter that I will take up after this.

My colleagues did a good job, I think, of shining a spotlight on the challenges that exist with the IDEA at 50--the chronic underfunding of this program, the Federal Government not meeting the commitment that it made in 1975 to fund 40 percent of these extra costs for kids with disabilities, the firing of staff recently.

These are serious issues, but I want to spend my time more focused on the celebration of what these 50 years of the IDEA have done.

When it was originally passed 50 years ago this month, the bill was called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the EHA. It was renamed the ``IDEA'' in a reauthorization in 1990.

Guess what the vote was in Congress around the passage of this law that was signed by President Ford. In the Senate, the vote to pass this landmark civil rights and education law was 87 to 7, and in the House, the vote was 404 to 7. For a big, landmark civil rights and education law to pass with that kind of a margin is really near miraculous.

The reason that it passed so overwhelmingly was because society realized that we had been treating kids with disabilities in a very, very tragic and unforgiveable way.

Get this: In 1975, more than a million school-age children in this country were essentially locked out of public education because of the fact that they had a disability--either not being educated at all or being educated in institutions often far away from their homes and families, far away from their friends and neighbors, in a way that was not providing them adequate educational support.

So think about that million that has now grown to 7 million--nearly 1 in 7 students in our public school system receives special education services--what the trajectory of their lives was like before the IDEA passed and after the IDEA passed.

Students with a designated disability under the IDEA receive an individualized education plan so that their particular disability can be focused in a meaningful way to enable them to be all they can be. Isn't that what we want for all children? Let all children be all they can be.

It is not often noted, but it should be noted that many students who receive individualized education plans--the IEPs--only require special education services for a couple of years because even a couple of years of speech therapy or other kinds of special services is enough to get that student completely successful without additional services.

I know this from my own family, my own three kids who went through public schools, that sometimes the IEP and the services provided only need to be provided for a short period of time. Students who receive these services early in their educational careers often don't need them for more than a couple of preschool years or early grades, and then they are perfectly successful.

The IDEA works. It works. It works to enable these students who had been consigned to the shadows of life for generations to be able to achieve all that they can.

You know, one of the measures of success of the IDEA at 50 is this: As a mayor, public education was the biggest part of my city budget. As a Governor, it was the biggest part of my State budget. And, man, did I hear a lot of complaints from people about the IDEA. My educator said that Congress isn't funding it well enough. My educator said that the paperwork to do an IEP and then to assess its compliance is way too complicated. But I never had a single person, an educator or anyone else, say we should undo the IDEA.

For all of the challenges about underfunding, for all of the challenges about paperwork, there is uniform recognition in this country that the passage of the IDEA, the 50 years of a commitment by society that every child should be all they can be, is a good thing. Can we make it better? Of course, we can. But that bedrock promise that was made in 1975 is a good thing, and it has worked to enrich the lives now of tens of millions of people, to make them productive adults, just like any of us aspire to be. What a great thing to be able to celebrate.

That is why I join my colleagues today to celebrate what the 50 years have meant to the tens of millions of students who benefited from the IDEA and the commitment that we must do better.

I am very, very troubled by the underfunding and applaud my colleagues for focusing on that, but I am also very troubled by the actions of this administration to shed the staff who are needed to work with States and work with local governments to make sure that services are being appropriately provided.

I remember being on the HELP Committee during President Trump's first term and examining his nominee for Secretary of Education in the first term, Secretary DeVos. She was talking about letting the IDEA just be run by States, with no Federal role.

I remember questioning her at the hearing: Well, what about States that decide not to do it?

Because it is expensive, there would be some States, without Federal oversight, that would just decide they would rather not provide services, not fund services for students with disabilities.

I asked her the question: Do you think a parent of a child with a disability should just have to move to another State that is more compassionate?

No. We have a Federal, national commitment that a child born with a disability, whatever ZIP Code in this country they are born in, should be entitled to receive these basic services.

That promise is being threatened right now by the firings. That promise has always been threatened by the chronic underfunding.

So while I join with my colleagues in committing to continuing to work to improve it, I don't want this moment to be lost without acknowledging the tremendous good that has been done by this most bipartisan law to enrich the lives of tens of millions of children and their families.

With that, I yield the floor on this topic and would ask to continue on now a second matter.

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent for the passage of S. Res. 473, and that is a resolution commemorating the seventh anniversary of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and calling for accountability for his murder.

This resolution is to honor the life and the absolutely gruesome death of the Washington Post journalist and Virginia resident Jamal Khashoggi.

For those who are not aware of Jamal Khashoggi's story, he dedicated his life to uncovering the truth. His work shed light on the repressive nature of the Saudi Arabian Government, and it exposed him to great personal danger. He fled Saudi Arabia in 2017, and his family found a home in Northern Virginia.

The Khashoggi story is now, unfortunately, too well known. On October 2, 2018, Mr. Khashoggi was brutally murdered by the Saudi Government agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkiye--murdered within a consulate, a place that is supposed to be a safe haven. His body, by all accounts of the United States and other intelligence, was dismembered by those Saudi agents within the consulate.

Mr. Khashoggi was not killed because he committed a crime. He was killed for speaking the truth as a journalist and shining a spotlight on the repressive nature of the Saudi Arabian Government. He was killed for standing up for the rights of his fellow Saudi Arabians.

Mr. Khashoggi's death is not a mystery. This is not a cold case waiting to be solved. We know exactly who is responsible for this killing.

The U.S. Government's Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as other U.S. intelligence Agencies, determined the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman, or MBS as he is often referred to, approved an official governmental operation in Istanbul to capture or kill Jamal Khashoggi.

As a result of that operation approved by MBS, Mr. Khashoggi was ambushed as he went to the consulate to get some paperwork regarding his marriage. He was strangled, killed and his body was dismembered, and then evidence of that crime was attempted to be destroyed.

Seven years later, there has been no accountability for the person most responsible for the horrifying murder, no real justice for Jamal Khashoggi, no justice for his family, no justice for the many others who have raised their voices in Saudi Arabia and who, for something as simple as tweeting, are being threatened with execution.

Instead, the leader who approved the operation to kill Jamal Khashoggi, the man who is proud to oppress his own people, MBS, is being celebrated today at our White House. MBS was welcomed with a black-tie dinner. He is being offered F-35 fighter jets--one of the crowned jewels of our security apparatus over the open objections of our ally Israel and potentially in violation of the law. He is being offered extremely high-tech computer chips and other valuable U.S. technology. He is being offered a major mutual defense agreement.

It is, frankly, outrageous to me that the President of the United States would assert that American servicemembers should put their lives on the line to defend the oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia.

Yesterday, when President Trump was asked by a reporter from ABC

about Jamal Khashoggi, he said ``a lot of people didn't like'' Jamal. He said, about the killing, ``things happen.'' Things like a gruesome strangling in an Embassy and the dismembering of a body of a journalist for the Washington Post with a bone saw--things happen.

And then our President threatened ABC's broadcast license because the reporter had the audacity to ask him a question he didn't like.

I have said it many times, and I am going say it again: Standing with this regime with no accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is not ``America First.'' It is not consistent with our values as a world- leading democracy.

I was very vocal in my frustration about this matter not only during President Trump's first term but also during President Biden's term. When President Biden visited Saudi Arabia in 2022 and fist-bumped with MBS, I was vocal in my dissatisfaction.

I was vocal in my disappointment over this effort when the Biden administration's State Department sided with MBS in his efforts to gain sovereign immunity in the United States to avoid accountability for this murder. I was frustrated when Biden administration Middle East policy officials left the White House in January of 2025 and in short order, started signing lucrative contracts with the Saudi Government.

And I continue to be appalled as the families of senior Trump administration officials--Kushner family, Witkoff family, and President Donald J. Trump's own children--signed major deals with the Saudi regime in cryptocurrency or real estate development.

Just a few days ago, on November 15, the New York Times reported that the Trump organization was in talks to bring Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia's largest government-owned real estate development.

I have huge questions, as I think many Americans do, about whether the intertwining of cryptocurrency or real estate deals is behind the President's casual reference to ``things happen'' to whitewash and excuse the assassination and dismembering of a Washington Post journalist who lived in my State.

When the Saudi-backed LIV golf tour made overtures about maybe acquiring the PGA in 2023, there was bipartisan outrage about that. But I have heard little outrage from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding MBS's visit.

Is the PGA more important, more worth raising concerns about than the transfer of F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia?

Shouldn't we ask: What is the Trump administration's priority? Is it democracy? Is it human rights? Is it national security? Or is it real estate or cryptocurrency deals that benefit family members of those in the administration?

Why is the administration willing to move so far to accommodate this regime, this individual, that our own intelligence Agencies have said is responsible for the murder of a Washington Post journalist who lives in my Commonwealth?

What is the United States getting from offering MBS all of this? Or is the United States getting anything? Is it instead individuals are getting their pockets filled at the expense of our Democratic human rights values?

Standing with Saudi Arabia against the interest of the American people, against our national security, against our human rights proclamations, against the security of our ally Israel, and against the freedom of the press right here at home is unconscionable.

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 473; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hand off the power to declare war to the President?

The Solicitor General said:

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

abdication, not a delegation.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.