[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 213 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5984-H5992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMOVAL OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES FORCES FOR HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR
AGAINST VENEZUELA
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of December
16,
[[Page H5985]]
2025, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) to direct
the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or
against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
December 16, 2025, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 64
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SEC. 1. REMOVAL OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES FORCES FOR
HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST VENEZUELA.
Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to
remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities
within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by
a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for
use of military force.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable
for 1 hour, equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast
of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative
McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Meeks), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is weak. It is unnecessary. It is
dangerous. It is also not about oversight. It is not about the
Constitution. Just like the last resolution, it is about tying the
President's hands, specifically in Venezuela. It is about telling
President Trump that he does not have the authority to defend the
United States of America.
This resolution is preemptive surrender. As written, it limits the
President's ability to respond to future threats posed by Venezuela.
If Russia delivers nukes there, the President cannot respond. If Iran
delivers a dirty bomb there, the President can't respond. If China
delivers anthrax or some other biological weapon, like they did with
COVID-19, but far more deadly, the President can't respond. No matter
what the threat, the President cannot respond.
Additionally, this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because
we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela. The Authorization for Use
of Military Force process exists in Congress, but Democrats are not
writing a scope of action for the President to defend the United States
of America. This resolution is a blanket statement to say to the
President that he cannot defend the United States of America.
{time} 1350
Mr. Speaker, no matter the threat emanating from Venezuela, you
cannot defend. You cannot defend me. You cannot defend our country
against it.
This resolution is not stopping war. It is not stopping invasion. It
is not stopping drug running. It is not stopping terrorism. It is not
stopping the President. It is just stopping the President from acting
decisively before Americans die. That is what it stops.
Let's be clear about who we are dealing with. Venezuela is the
largest and best-funded cartel in the world. We just saw the ranking
member with Nicolas Maduro. Maduro had his hand around him. He is not a
legitimate head of state. He is a legitimate narcoterrorist who is
poisoning Americans.
All the stuff we talked about in the last debate is Maduro. He is the
head of a cartel who will abduct somebody, behead somebody, or torture
somebody to support his political ends.
Both Republican and Democrat administrations agree that Maduro is an
illegitimate dictator who rules through repression, fraud, and
violence. He uses the Venezuelan military to move cocaine into the
United States. That is not theory. This is a state-run criminal
enterprise. Venezuela is not a gang. It is a cartel state. It rakes in
billions, moving more than 250 metric tons of Columbian cocaine through
their country every year.
The United States already has bipartisan sanctions on Venezuelan oil.
President Trump supported them. President Biden kept them. Maduro is
violating those sanctions. We just caught him doing it again. A ghost
ship was intercepted, smuggling Venezuelan oil. Maduro admitted the oil
was his.
Here is the simple question: How do we enforce sanctions if we are
not allowed to stop the shipments? The answer is that we cannot.
Interdicting those Venezuelan oil shipments is not war. It is sanction
enforcement. It is law and order.
Given that it is the Venezuelan Government that is the cartel, the
trafficker, the one moving these ships, that is why it requires the
military to do so.
This resolution reads as if Maduro wrote it himself. It gives a
narcoterrorist dictator a free pass to keep trafficking drugs, funding
criminal networks, and killing Americans because it appears Democrats
hate President Trump more than they can love America.
President Trump has the authority and the obligation to take limited
and targeted action to protect the United States of America wherever
those threats emanate from.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say maybe I can teach the chairman something
about diplomacy. Maybe he doesn't know anything about diplomacy.
First, let me talk about the picture he tried to show me. That was a
bipartisan trip, Democrats and Republicans, working together. It was
called the Boston Group. We were bringing the opposition and at that
time the Chavistas together.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend? Unless a Member
is under recognition, they cannot display exhibits.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, we were diplomatically working together. We
were trying to help the people of Venezuela.
In fact, we can also see how long ago that was. I had all-black hair
at the time. I think I looked good. I got gray. I had all-black hair
because that was back in 2002. I was a new Member of Congress, trying
to work together with diplomacy from the very beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I didn't come here with prop photos because I am here to
debate substance. I am here to find out why the President of the United
States pardoned convicted drug dealers. I have not gotten an answer to
that yet.
If we are talking about pictures, I could have come with pictures of
President Trump with his arm around Kim Jong Un. I could have come with
pictures of President Trump offering the red carpet to Vladimir Putin.
I could have come with a whole lot of pictures of President Trump with
Epstein. I didn't come to play games. My colleague is playing a game on
the House floor.
I came because we have serious business here. This is not a game.
This is about our responsibility as Members of Congress in addressing
issues that should be before this body. It is about us having a debate
in committee and holding the administration accountable, as we do any
President. It is about us being the Representatives of people who elect
us.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a game. Diplomacy is not a game. War is not
a game. There are rules in war. When people violate rules in war, they
have to be held accountable. When people violate rules in our cities,
they have to be held accountable.
The people who are in these positions--law enforcement officers,
police officers, and the President of the United States--have to be
held responsible. If we close our eyes on one, our country is not the
country we have said it is.
I said earlier on the floor during this debate: My War Powers
Resolution to end this administration's extrajudicial strikes on boats
in the Western Hemisphere, those bombs are not about drugs.
[[Page H5986]]
If the administration did want to stop drugs, Trump would not have
pardoned the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, or
Ross Ulbricht who operated the Silk Road drug marketplace. He wouldn't
seize an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela or threaten CIA
operations, blockades, and strikes on Venezuela.
This is no joke. This is serious. This is not about drugs. It is
about regime change. It is about being honest with the people of
America. That is what the Chief of Staff of the President just did. She
didn't talk about drugs. She talked about regime change. It is Trump
himself saying it.
He said he wanted the oil. He said it was our oil, not Venezuela's
oil. He said it is our oil and our territory. We are going to take it
back. That is the tweet of the President. This is no joke. This is no
game. This is serious business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but I am glad I am not
on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thought the Rules Committee was
tough. Listening to this debate, I would go out of my mind. I couldn't
follow the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I want to correct something. This is not a Democratic resolution. It
is a bipartisan resolution. Maybe that is something the chairman is not
familiar with, but this is a bipartisan resolution. Democrats and
Republicans have sponsored it.
In this Chamber, I guess we have all become accustomed to debating
trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. We spend a
lot of time renaming post offices and passing bills that do nothing for
anybody. Maybe the distinguished chairman is not used to doing big
things.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that the issue of war is a big deal. It is a
big deal. It should be a big deal to Democrats. It should be a big deal
to Republicans.
{time} 1400
It is our constitutional responsibility, and so I am here because I
am deeply troubled that the President of the United States, in my view,
is slowly but surely marching us toward open hostilities with
Venezuela. I don't say that as a Democrat. I say it as an American who
is worried about this country getting dragged into another potentially
endless war.
Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. I mean, that is what we are
talking about. That is what we are talking about. This is not some
hypothetical, abstract debate. Donald Trump has already engaged in acts
that are considered hostile under U.S. law.
He has threatened to close Venezuelan airspace. He says that he plans
a naval blockade against the country soon. He has warned that military
strikes on Venezuela will start ``very soon.''
Our Constitution provides this body, the United States Congress, with
the solitary authority to declare war, and the President, despite
already engaging in hostile actions toward Venezuela, has neither
requested nor received the authorization for the use of military force
as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Mr. Speaker, American troops take an oath to protect and defend this
country. It is our duty in Congress to debate and vote before they are
put into harm's way.
Right now, by placing U.S. military assets off the coast of
Venezuela, this administration has them in harm's way right now. That
is why, in a bipartisan way, we have introduced this resolution. It
provides the House of Representatives with the simple up-or-down vote.
It is a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do my colleagues want an unauthorized
war in Venezuela or not?
Mr. Speaker, you may want a war in Venezuela. You ought to vote for
it if you want it, but I do not want any war in Venezuela. I am joined
on this resolution, again, by Members of Congress across the political
spectrum, Democrats and Republicans who, like me, are deeply troubled
by the idea of endless wars and of America spending more of its
treasure on wars that are not clearly defined, that we have no idea how
they will end up, at a time when we can't even provide people
healthcare in this country and where we have homeless veterans.
I was here in 2002, Mr. Speaker. I voted against the war in Iraq, and
Americans do not want another Iraq. If we intensify hostilities against
Venezuela, we have no idea what we are walking into.
The oversight in this Congress has been almost nonexistent given what
is going on. Congress has been lied to repeatedly--repeatedly by
administrations from both parties who want to use our military in ill-
defined and often unwinnable conflicts.
I remember the Bush administration telling us that the war in Iraq
would be a cinch. It was clearly not. We spent over a decade at war. We
lost American lives, civilian lives, and added trillions of dollars to
our debt at the expense of the basic needs of the American people.
At least George Bush had the decency to come to Congress for approval
in 2002. Don't the American people deserve that respect today?
This is about whether we want to use taxpayer dollars and risk
American lives on regime change, endless wars, and costly quagmires, or
whether we want to invest here in our own country and solve our own
problems.
For God's sake, we live in a country where we, again, have homeless
veterans, where we have hungry school kids, where seniors can't afford
their medication, and families struggle to get by.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is immoral. It is not just a strategic
failure but a moral failure that we have a President beating the drums
of war without so much as a vote in the House of Representatives. This
is not America first.
Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues may say that war is
justified. I can't for the life of me figure out that logic, but I went
to the classified briefing that the administration organized yesterday.
I went to other classified briefings.
I heard no justification that there was some imminent military threat
from Venezuela, nothing that would justify the hostilities that the
President is engaged in right now in building up troops.
To those who want to go to war and say that this is about drugs and
cartels, let me just say that this administration's own Drug
Enforcement Administration reports that fentanyl is overwhelmingly
produced in other countries using chemicals that come from elsewhere in
the world. Venezuela isn't listed as a fentanyl source or transit
country in any edition of the National Drug Threat Assessment.
More fentanyl comes from China and Mexico than Venezuela. Maybe the
chairman wants to go to war with China and Mexico.
By the way, as is pointed out, Donald Trump pardoned the ex-President
of Honduras who was found guilty of drug trafficking. The chairman said
nothing about that.
Over 3,667 people in Florida died from fentanyl, and the President of
the United States pardoned one of the people who was primarily
responsible for getting fentanyl into our country. He also pardoned the
dark web guy who smuggled fentanyl in from China. Not a word. No
oversight. Who cares because they don't want to say anything about
Donald. He is the pardoner in chief. If you want to stop drugs from
coming in, start by not pardoning drug dealers.
Those who want to go to war also point out that Nicolas Maduro is a
tyrant. I agree that he is a tyrant. He violates the human rights of
his own people. He has unlawfully detained Americans and Venezuelans as
political prisoners. He is a violent, vicious, brutal dictator. Guess
what, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, the globe is full of violent, vicious
tyrants--in China, Russia, and North Korea. Do you want to go to war
with all of them?
For God's sake, we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt,
countries that have awful human rights violations. I hate Maduro, and I
condemn him all the time. While we should have a discussion about how
to help the people of Venezuela, the answer is not going to war.
Congress should have the guts to at least debate this issue and vote
on it and not just cede all of this power to the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is serious. It is not a joke. It is not just about
pictures, but pictures tell a thousand words.
[[Page H5987]]
You came here to prevent the President from defending the United
States of America, plain and simple. There have been deaths in Florida.
There have been deaths in Representative McGovern's district: 262
overdoses in the last year, people beaten by MS-13, strangled by MS-13,
stabbed 32 times by MS-13. The list goes on.
That is what the President is trying to defend from happening in the
United States of America. That is as serious as it gets, and it
absolutely matters that Nicolas Maduro has his arm around the authors
of this legislation that would prevent the President from defending
against that country, their cartels, their terrorists, and the drugs
coming through that country. What the President is doing in the Gulf is
protecting the homeland of the United States of America, protecting the
homeland.
I would give this last comment to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern): I never saw the things that I did as big or small.
Risking my life for my country, I simply saw as my duty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Self), the chair of the Europe Subcommittee.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which is
not necessary, as it removes our Armed Forces from hostilities against
a country where there have been no hostilities. The War Powers Act has
no legal bearing on actions that could happen in the future. Yet that
is exactly what this concurrent resolution attempts to do.
To date, there are no confirmed U.S. servicemembers engaged in combat
with Venezuela.
While I could end it there, since Democrats are turning a blind eye
to the killing of Americans by illicit drugs from Venezuela, I also
highlight that Venezuela has become a strategic outpost for China,
Russia, and Iran, not to mention criminal and terrorist organizations.
Just yesterday, at a Europe Subcommittee hearing, I made the point
that China and Russia are engaged in hybrid war against the United
States today.
Not only has Maduro's regime purchased Iranian-armed drones, but they
have also allowed Iran to establish production facilities for its
military drones within their borders.
Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah use Caracas as a base to
operate their criminal terror organizations in South America,
generating revenue through narcotrafficking.
Russia, a longtime ally of the regime, still provides Venezuela with
military aid while also facing the challenges of waging war in Ukraine.
In fact, Venezuela opened a factory last summer to manufacture Russian
Kalashnikov rifle munitions.
{time} 1410
China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba use the country as a platform for
intelligence operations in asymmetric warfare.
Instead of considering this resolution, which carries little or no
consequences for hostilities that do not exist, this Chamber should
focus on supporting the President's efforts to deter the growing
national security threat from Venezuela.
Hundreds of Americans die each day due to illegal drugs. Rather than
Democrats making it their life's mission to destroy Donald Trump,
America would be better served by Members of this Chamber if we helped
him prevent the flow of illicit drugs that are killing our citizens.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
resolution.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into these back-and-forths. I have
been waiting for an answer because this is serious business. The
American people want an answer that they can't quite get yet. I can't
get anybody at a hearing from the administration to answer the
question. I can't even get anybody from the administration, when I saw
some yesterday, to answer the question. I have been waiting here. The
American people want to know why a President of the United States would
pardon two drug dealers. They are not just accused. They are convicted
and in jail. They were, but not anymore. They are free men now.
I have been waiting for an answer. I am not playing jokes. This is
very serious. I am asking everybody, all of my Republican colleagues,
anybody who speaks, anybody, just answer the question. We are on C-
SPAN. Here is an opportunity to tell the American people why the
President of the United States, for whom you say this is about drugs,
would let go of two major convicted drug dealers, not small guys, but
major. I just don't know why kingpins can get away with doing and
pedaling drugs in the United States, but a peon in the operation must
die.
Even if you survived a strike and are holding on for dear life--you
have no weapons, no phone, no anything--you are still an imminent
danger, so they say, to the United States.
We have pictures that will show whether or not they were a threat to
the United States while holding onto that boat. The administration has
decided they can show all the others, but the American people cannot
see that.
I have been waiting for an answer. The American people want an
answer. I will wait.
Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this War Powers Resolution.
Twenty-three years ago, I stood on this same floor as Congress
debated an Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.
The Bush administration relied on bad intelligence and outright lies
to march America into a disastrous foreign intervention that cost
trillions of dollars, took thousands of American lives, and helped
destabilize the region for a generation.
Today, I fear we are watching history repeat itself. Once again, a
far-right administration is using the same playbook. The justification
this administration has provided to Congress and the American people is
a joke.
If this were about drugs, why seize an oil tanker and threaten an
illegal Navy blockade? If this were about drugs, why would the
President pardon a drug-trafficking former President of Honduras?
This is not about drugs. This is about regime change and control of
Venezuela's resources.
Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, and you don't have to defend him to
recognize a simple truth: Venezuela does not pose an imminent threat,
and a war will do nothing to make America safer.
We are sleepwalking into another disastrous foreign war, and Congress
must wake up and stop this before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington
Post titled: ``Trump pardons major drug traffickers despite his anti-
drug rhetoric.''
[From The Washington Post, Dec. 8, 2025]
Trump Pardons Major Drug Traffickers Despite His Anti-Drug Rhetoric
(By Meryl Kornfield and Emily Davies)
On President Donald Trump's first full day in office this
year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was
convicted of creating the largest online black market for
illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time.
In the months since, he has granted clemency to others,
including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug
kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned
former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had
been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country
as a vast ``narco-state'' that helped to move at least 400
tons of cocaine into the United States.
Overall, Trump--who campaigned against America's worsening
drug crisis and promised to crack down on the illegal flow of
deadly drugs coming across the border--has pardoned or
granted clemency to at least 10 people for drug-related
crimes since the beginning of his second term, according to a
Washington Post analysis. He also granted pardons or
commutations to almost 90 others for drug-related crimes
during the four years of his first term, the analysis showed.
At the same time, Trump has threatened military action
against Venezuela over accusations that the country's
government is
[[Page H5988]]
supporting the drug trade and has pushed the Pentagon to
conduct targeted strikes on boats suspected of smuggling
drugs in the Caribbean. The contrasting actions have come
under fire from Democrats and other critics, who say Trump's
broad use of clemency contradicts promises to get tough on
drugs.
``President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop
the flow of narcotics into the United States,'' Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Virginia) said on the Senate floor Tuesday,
describing the crimes of Ulbricht and Hernandez. ``. . . How
does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics
entering our country?''
Asked about the contrast, White House press secretary
Karoline Leavitt said the pardon of the Honduran president
doesn't make it difficult to defend the administration's
lethal strikes on suspected drug traffickers.
``I think that President Trump has been quite clear, in his
defense of the United States homeland, to stop these illegal
narcotics from coming to our borders, whether that's by land
or by sea, and he's also made it quite clear that he wants to
correct the wrongs of the weaponized Justice Department under
the previous administration,'' she told reporters last
Monday.
Asked about Trump's spate of drug-related pardons and
commutations, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told
The Post that Trump had exercised his constitutional
authority, and she attacked former president Joe Biden.
``The only pardons anyone should be critical of are from
President Autopen, who pardoned and commuted sentences of
violent criminals including child killers and mass
murderers--and that's not to mention the proactive pardons he
`signed' for his family members like Hunter on his way out
the door,'' Jackson said.
Trump and his aides have baselessly claimed that Biden's
staffers routinely used an autopen to sign pardons and other
documents without his knowledge.
Trump has wielded one of the greatest powers of the
presidency, clemency, far more this year than he did in his
first term. He has pardoned almost all of the approximately
1,500 Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack defendants. He also
has pardoned about a dozen members of Congress, mostly
Republicans, including most recently Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-
Texas), who was charged last year with bribery, money
laundering and conspiracy.
By comparison, Trump granted clemency to more than 230
people in his first term, just two of those in his first
year.
The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage
industry, The Post previously reported. Public disclosures
show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this
year on firms that advocate for pardons, clemency and other
forms of executive relief--more than double the total spent
in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking
pardons have paid up to $1 million to hire people close to
the president to plead their case.
Experts say the administration's efforts to strike boats
near Venezuela have not proved effective in limiting the flow
of drugs entering the country because the passage is not
ordinarily used to traffic drugs to the United States. Drugs
containing fentanyl, which have contributed to most recent
drug deaths, are typically manufactured in Mexico and
smuggled into the U.S. across the land border. The
administration has not provided detailed evidence that the
boats they have sunk had drugs on board and were heading for
the United States.
The administration has claimed that the strikes are an
effective deterrent for other drug traffickers. Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters last week that they
paused the strikes ``because it's hard to find boats to
strike right now, which is the entire point, right?
Deterrence has to matter.'' However, experts say there is no
available evidence to support the theory that trafficking is
down.
``Drug trafficking is like water,'' said Regina LaBelle, a
Georgetown University drug policy professor and former acting
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
``It's going to find a way to get in.''
Critics of the war on drugs have also long asserted that
the government has insufficiently addressed the root cause of
deaths in the U.S.: addiction. Advocates have urged the
government to invest more in overdose prevention measures,
such as naloxone and treatment options.
The rate of overdose deaths has been on the rise for
decades, fueled by fentanyl since around 2015, until the end
of Biden's term, when the rate declined.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be lectured by the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs because, as
I mentioned, in Florida, 3,667 people have died from fentanyl.
This President has pardoned drug dealer after drug dealer, and there
has not been a peep from my friends on the other side of the aisle, who
are now talking about the issue of drugs in the United States, not a
peep. I don't know how you explain that to the families of those who
lost their lives, number one.
Number two, the chairman made a big deal about pictures, that if you
are in a picture with somebody and you touch them, that somehow you are
affiliated with them.
Here is a picture of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with a nice
handshake. Does that say that Trump is somehow Vladimir Putin's friend?
Here is Trump with Kim Jong-un, giving him a nice hug, another dictator
that Trump seems to be enamored with. I don't even know what the hell
that proves, but the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs seems
to think that photos are a big deal.
Let me read our resolution to you. It says: ``Pursuant to section
5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby
directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces
from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly
authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization
for use of military force.''
That is it. I can't even believe this is controversial. I can't even
believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle have a problem
with this. This is the most basic stuff.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, James Madison warned us that: ``In no part
of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which
confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to
the executive.'' Madison called it the crown jewel of Congress.
The Framers understood a simple truth: To the extent that warmaking
power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.
If the President believes military action against Venezuela is
justified and needed, he should make the case, and Congress should vote
before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South
America.
Let's be honest about likely outcomes. Do we truly believe that
Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How
did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?
Previous Presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass
destruction, that did not exist. Now, it is the same playbook, except
we are told that drugs are the WMDs.
If it were about drugs, we would bomb Mexico, China, or Colombia, and
the President would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. This is
about oil and regime change.
{time} 1420
When it comes to regime change, we have already been down this road
with Venezuela with nothing to show for it. In 2019, we recognized Juan
Guaido. We seized their embassy here in D.C. We were told that regime
change was imminent. Years later, Maduro remains in power.
Today, we are told to place our hopes in other exiled figures:
Edmundo Gonzalez and Maria Corina Machado. I wish them well. I do. But
Congress should not express moral sympathy in the form of a blank check
for military escalation and American lives.
Let's take a moment to acknowledge the contradiction at the heart of
this policy. This administration tells us that the Maduro regime is
made up of narcoterrorists. By escalating toward war, we would
predictably create countless refugees. At the same time, this
administration has moved to end temporary protected status for hundreds
of thousands of Venezuelans and deports them back to the very regime it
condemns. So which is it?
Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans who
will likely become refugees and lose billions in American treasure that
will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want
a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?
If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on
it, as a voice of the people, and in accordance with our Constitution.
Yet today, we aren't even voting on whether to declare war or
authorize the use of military force. All we are voting on is a war
powers resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by
reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that
Congress must decide questions of war.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I will give a lecture anyway to the Speaker in
reference to what Mr. McGovern said.
[[Page H5989]]
I shake a lot of people's hands that I don't like. I definitely don't
let them put their arm around me. There is a big difference. People
with common sense recognize that. I wouldn't speak for him, but I
suspect he would live life in the same way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Crawford), the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
this initiative. I am glad somebody is showing some leadership here
today.
I rise in opposition to the removal of the use of United States Armed
Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, or the support for
drug dictators act.
The United States is using a proportional force to apply pressure on
narcoterrorists who are colluding with the illegitimate leader of
Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro. They have already acknowledged that.
The use of military pressure, which matches pressure that the U.S.
has used in the global fight on terrorism, is a proper extension of the
use of force in the Western Hemisphere where narcoterrorists operating
through and with Venezuela are creating instability and poisoning
Americans in droves.
The use of measured military power is the logical step to attempt to
stop narcotics terrorists from supporting Maduro.
The United States has imposed individual, financial, and sectoral
sanctions on the Venezuelan Government as well as sanctions on the
Maduro government and its supporters. This proposed resolution would
disable the very effective tool that has been used to keep pressure on
terrorist forces who have a Venezuelan nexus and are planning,
plotting, and carrying out attacks against the U.S. and our interests.
The strikes on narcoterrorist cartel assets have been precise and
limited. Military action of this nature does not require congressional
authorization. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President has
the authority--and I would say the responsibility--to protect the
United States and American citizens from attack. Moreover, U.S. troops
have not been put into harm's way.
Admittedly, it shocks me that we need to remind my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle what we are fighting for here. The most recent
CDC data shockingly reports that more than 82,000 drug overdose deaths
have occurred during the 12-month period ending in January 2025. If
ISIS or al-Qaida had contributed to the killing of that many Americans
in a single year, our leaders would be rightfully assailed for failing
to respond.
Now that President Trump is taking the fight to the terrorists who
have actually contributed to our Nation's drug overdose epidemic, he is
met with criticism rather than the praise that he and his
administration deserve.
I guarantee you that family and friends don't distinguish between the
branch of terrorism that led to the death of their loved ones. They
just want them defeated.
For too long, these cartels have poisoned the American people,
destabilized and corrupted our neighbors, and tortured and killed
thousands of innocents throughout our hemisphere.
I have traveled extensively across the Western Hemisphere and met
with many of our neighbors' leaders and their forces who are also
engaged in the fight against these cartels, and these terrorist
organizations are some of the most vile and evil in the world.
To bar the President from using military force consistent with other
counterterrorism activities, simply due to a Venezuelan nexus, is not
supportable and is antithetical to his duty to protect our Nation from
foreign terrorism threats.
This resolution would prevent the application of the use of force
against the very narcotics terrorists cooperating with Venezuela.
How in the world is that consistent with the primary duty of the
government to protect our Nation and its citizens?
I strongly recommend that my colleagues vote against this misguided
resolution.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say this real quick, because the chairman keeps going on
about these pictures. I am not going to keep belaboring, but I do
remember something, if you want to talk about it now.
I think that we know that Kim Jong-un, who he is, et cetera. I have a
quote, if you really want to talk about relationships, Mr. Chairman,
that you can get directly from the President of the United States. When
he was talking about Kim Jong-un, here is what he said: ``We fell in
love, okay? No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they're
great letters.'' We are in love.
That is Kim Jong-un. You can also talk about him and Xi, where
fentanyl is coming into the United States. Those are real
relationships.
Any time you are ready to answer the question about why somebody, the
President of the United States, would pardon kingpins in the drug
trade, I will get an answer. I have been waiting. I have been asking
everybody. Not only the chairman but any Republican that wants to make
a statement, if they could just explain to the American people. They
don't have to explain it to me. Explain it to the American people. Just
give me some explanation of why the President of the United States
would pardon convicted drug traffickers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, why did the Framers vest the power to
declare war in Congress alone? It was because the kings were constantly
plunging their entire nations into wars of vanity, of conceit, of
caprice, of mere whimsy.
They didn't trust one man to be able to take the entire country to
war. They wanted that question proposed in the representatives of the
people because it is our sons and daughters who will go fight, and it
is the whole country's treasure that will be put at risk.
Now, Donald Trump, buffeted by dozens of election losses all across
the country from Virginia to New York to New Jersey to California to
Mississippi and Georgia, sinking in the polls like a stone because of
his catastrophic unconstitutional tariffs and his complete destruction
of the healthcare system of the country, now wants to turn the
metaphorical war on drugs into an actual, physical war on drugs.
Well, Donald Trump's real interests in supporting dictators and big-
time drug dealers were made clear with a series of Presidential pardons
of major drug dealers, including the former President of Honduras, Juan
Orlando Hernandez. The guy was sentenced to 45 years in prison for
bringing 40 tons--I am sorry--400 tons of cocaine into the country.
Eight hundred thousand pounds of cocaine he brought into our country,
and President Hernandez says: I am going to stuff the cocaine up the
noses of the gringos.
President Trump pardoned him without any explanation. We eagerly
await an explanation from someone on that side because they have blown
up 26 vessels on the high seas which have at most, if each one has 2
tons of cocaine in it, 52 tons, and he pardoned this guy who brought in
800,000 pounds of cocaine to stuff up the noses of the gringos.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I urgently commend to our colleagues across
the aisle the speech that President Lincoln, the founder of their
party, made about the Mexican-American War. He stood in this Chamber
and said: On something as important and as grave as going to war, we
want to know exactly what the rationale is, exactly why we are doing
it.
He got the nickname Spotty because he said he wanted to know the
exact spot where American blood was shed.
Well, there is a real accounting to be done in terms of what is the
factual predicate for this war that Donald Trump wants.
{time} 1430
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee has said some strange things today about how you interpret
photographs if the people are shaking hands
[[Page H5990]]
or whatever, but, somehow, if your arm is around somebody that means
that you are dear friends.
I am just looking at this photo of Donald Trump with his arm around
Jeffrey Epstein. By the gentleman's standards, they must be in love.
This debate is not about the gentleman's personal weird code on
touching. This is about war, and that is what we are here to talk
about. Quite frankly, it deserves a more serious treatment from the
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Castro), who is one of the cosponsors of this resolution.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are at war with Venezuela. Last
night, the President declared a naval blockade of Venezuela. This is an
act of war.
The President has said that strikes on land are imminent. He is
dragging us into a war that the American people do not want and that
the Congress did not authorize.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are asking: Why?
Is it about the drugs?
It can't be about the drugs because he just pardoned one of the
largest drug traffickers in U.S. history.
Is it about fentanyl?
Venezuela doesn't traffic fentanyl.
One can't say that it is because Nicholas Maduro is a dictator. He
certainly is a dictator, and the Venezuelan people deserve better, but
so is Mohammed bin Salman, who is a leader the President praises all
the time.
Mr. Speaker, you can't say that it is about communism, because China
is one of our largest trading partners.
So what is this war about?
It is about regime change, power, graft, oil, and land. Yesterday,
the President told us he wants to seize the oil and the land. The
President has no plans to address rising grocery prices, healthcare
prices, childcare prices, and rent that is going up. Instead of
attacking Venezuela, he should be attacking those high prices.
These are issues that Americans want us to focus on, but, instead, he
is sending American servicemembers into an illegal war.
We have been down this path before. The vote to authorize the Iraq
war came to define the legacy of every Member of the 107th Congress.
That vote came to haunt many.
Your vote today will be part of your legacy. It will be part of how
your service in the House of Representatives will be defined.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). Members are reminded to direct
their comments to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, for every one of my colleagues on the other
side, it is about drugs. It is about the drugs being prevented from
going into their community, like Representative Castro's, who had 101
people die last year from overdose and somebody murdered by Tren de
Aragua on June 16, 2024. It is absolutely about preventing those
things. It is about preventing those things, and they are going to
allow it in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
McCormick).
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to this
resolution because the issue before us is not one of Presidential
authority. It is whether Congress should undermine the President's
ability to deter threats and protect the United States' interests in
our own hemisphere.
History shows that time after time, Mr. Speaker, if you signal
weakness, it emboldens your adversaries. A resolution that publicly
constrains the Commander in Chief does not promote peace. What it does
is it telegraphs weakness to a hostile regime like Venezuela and
encourages them to test U.S. resolve.
This is not a distant theater. This is our hemisphere. Supporting the
President's authority is not a blank check for war. It is a
recommendation that timely, flexible military posturing is what
prevents war, and in this case protects Americans against the most
lethal attack ever on the American people and the population where we
have lost over 250 people per day for the last 3 years.
This is not the time to act in opposition to the Commander in Chief
and to oppose him from the most important obligation he has: protect
the American public. That is why I oppose this.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano), who is the ranking member of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, no President, Democrat or Republican, can
declare war without Congress. Congress is the branch of government
vested with this solemn responsibility.
President Trump has not requested or received any authorization for
the use of military force against Venezuela. Yet he continues to
escalate the situation by striking speedboats, seizing oil tankers, and
establishing blockades, which is an act of war.
Congress must be consulted. The President is either trying to
distract Americans from the fact that millions of people are going to
lose their healthcare, or he believes that he is a king unbound by our
laws, unbound by international law, and unbound by our Constitution.
We cannot allow him to unilaterally declare war. Congress must be
consulted.
Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded, again, to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Speaker, from the start of the Trump
administration, this Republican-led Congress has willingly given up our
powers and authority: our power of the purse, our oversight authority,
our legislative authority, and now, our war powers.
Members of this body have surrendered their ability to check the
executive and have failed to stand up for democracy and the American
people.
I say: Enough is enough. Congress must start acting as a coequal
branch of government. Trump and his administration, while waging a war
in our cities, are committing war crimes in the Caribbean.
While Trump lies to us about how they are going after
narcotraffickers, he is pardoning convicted narcotraffickers who are
probably responsible for many of the overdoses we have seen around the
country.
The hypocrisy is suffocating. The administration is lying,
consolidating power, and committing war crimes in order to control, to
dominate, and to seize Venezuelan oil and pursue regime change for
their imperialistic agenda in the Western Hemisphere. They do this all
so they can extract resources, they can expand their wealth, and they
can make sure that one day, should they lose their hold on power, which
they will, they can be pardoned for their corruption.
It seems like Republicans love Trump and protecting pedophiles more
than they love America and children. It is shameful, and it is pitiful.
It is filthy, and we have to put an end to it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Let's take back the power and authority that rightfully belongs to
Congress and put an end to the lawlessness that makes us all less safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded, once again, to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
{time} 1440
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).
Mrs. BIGGS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the resolution which seeks to limit the constitutional
authority of the President under Article II and micromanage the
Commander in Chief during a national security crisis.
While our Nation's first priority must always be the pursuit of peace
[[Page H5991]]
over conflict, we cannot remain idle when an indicted drug trafficker
weaponizes narcoterrorists to assault our sovereignty. Peace is
maintained through strength, and it would be both unconstitutional and
irresponsible to tie the hands of the President, who is protecting the
American people from drug cartels and terrorist tactics.
Decades of executive branch precedent, affirmed by both parties,
establish that restricted engagements involving no ground troops and
limited operations do not require congressional authorization.
The President's targeted strikes on narcoterrorist vessels have been
precise and targeted and have not put U.S. troops in harm's way.
Passage of this resolution would set catastrophic precedent. It would
define any defensive use of force as an act of war, effectively
stripping the Commander in Chief of his constitutional mandate to
respond to foreign threats and to secure our borders against a criminal
regime.
Mr. Speaker, the War Powers Resolution was never intended to be a
tool for the legislative branch to conduct tactical oversight of
military operations.
We have one Commander in Chief for a reason. Which side are we on:
keeping Americans safe or protecting narcoterrorists? I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Florida have
additional speakers? I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have three more speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Gimenez).
Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
resolution.
This resolution would prohibit the use of United States Armed Forces
off the coast of Venezuela without regard for the real and growing
threats posed by the foreign terrorist Maduro regime.
Let's be clear-eyed about the danger that we face. The Maduro regime
is a designated foreign terrorist organization, a narcoterrorist state
that collaborates with other foreign terrorist organizations and
violent cartels to flood our hemisphere and our communities with deadly
poison.
Venezuela has been taken over. The Venezuelan people are held hostage
by a foreign terrorist regime that uses their land as an operating base
for international drug trafficking, fueling a crisis that has cost
nearly 400,000 Americans their lives since 2021.
This resolution would have us pull back from the fight against
designated terrorist regimes and cartels in our own hemisphere, just
miles from our shores. It tells the foreign terrorist regime in
Venezuela and its criminal allies that Congress is willing to look the
other way as hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to die every
single year.
We must reject this resolution and send a clear message: The United
States will confront narcoterrorist regimes in our hemisphere, stand
with the Venezuelan people, and never surrender to terrorist regimes
that threaten our security. Too many Americans have already paid with
their lives because this threat was ignored.
For the sake of our national security, our communities, and the men
and women in uniform who stand the line every day, I urge a ``no'' vote
on this resolution. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the War Powers Act
was to prevent secret wars from happening after Vietnam. The reason why
we have this is so that the administration is accountable to the
people. No war should be declared and no war should be prosecuted in
the name of the American people without their consent.
If the President wishes to go to war, he must come to the people,
explain his rationale, and get their consent. He is not doing that now.
When he doesn't do that, bad things happen. Bad things are happening
today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, the
Constitution is crystal clear that only Congress can start a war.
However, in their deliberations on this subject, the Founders also made
clear that they were leaving the President certain limited inherent
power to react to an attack. For example, he can order up defensive
measures or hot pursuit of an enemy or retaliatory strikes. That is the
distinction they debated when they substituted ``declare war'' instead
of ``make war'' among Congress' enumerated powers.
The supporters of this resolution are correct. Congress has to
initiate hostilities, but neither of these resolutions are applicable
to current events. H. Con. Res. 64 orders the President to remove
forces from Venezuela that are not in Venezuela. Until and unless they
are, this is at best an empty partisan exercise. Worse, it could be
construed to constrain his inherent powers in the event of an attack by
Venezuela that requires an immediate response.
H. Con. Res. 61 orders him to cease attacks on terrorist groups,
presumably the drug runners, but these are unflagged vessels carrying
contraband in international waters. An attack on them is not an
attack on a foreign power and, therefore, not an act of war. It is akin
to firing on Somali pirates menacing international shipping.
If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela or
Venezuelan-flagged vessels without congressional declaration, we should
have this debate. Until then, I think the Democrats would do well not
to cry wolf on such an important matter.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. McGovern: Is the
contention that this is a present condition, that there are U.S. forces
in violation of the War Powers Resolution, or is it about a
hypothetical future?
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. The first thing you said.
Mr. DAVIDSON. The contention is it is a pressing condition?
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
Mr. DAVIDSON. I disagree with that. I will be voting ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Read the intelligence.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I reserve the
balance of my time until the gentlemen yield back.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I really can't believe this debate from some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle. They are talking about things
that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation. I mean, they
are talking about fentanyl. Well, fentanyl is coming from China. That
is the problem. Do you want to bomb China? Then make the case to bomb
China. That is where fentanyl is coming from.
They are talking about nuclear war. I don't even know what that has
to do with what we are debating here today.
I think what is clear is my Republican friends are basically covering
up for the President, who is sleepwalking us right into a war in
Venezuela. That is the issue here.
The President, by his own words, has said that he wants to block the
airspace in Venezuela. He has talked about troops in Venezuela. He is
stationing American forces around Venezuela. Under U.S. law, those are
acts of hostility.
I have seen this movie before, where my Republican friends get up and
they talk tough: Let's go to war, let's go to war. Then we go to war,
and it becomes a catastrophe. Then they say: Well, I never voted for a
war. Oh, I didn't do that. That is not me.
Well, under the Constitution, we have a responsibility to declare
war. We have a responsibility to debate war. Quite frankly, this
Congress, given what is going on in Venezuela, ought to be doing more
oversight and ought to be debating this issue. That it is somehow
controversial or undercuts our attempts to stop drugs from coming into
this country is ridiculous. It is ludicrous.
[[Page H5992]]
I have been around for a while. The one thing I can tell you with
certainty, it is easy to get into a war. It is hard as hell to get out
of war. I have been around long enough to hear Presidents of both
parties talk about war as something simple: You can get into it, you
get out of it easy, no big deal. That has never happened. That has
never happened.
{time} 1450
Even the Pentagon says it will be very complicated to topple Maduro,
and what might result might be more violence, more chaos. It could be a
quagmire.
All we are saying here is, let's do our job. If you don't want to do
the job, I don't know why the hell you are here, seriously. The Foreign
Affairs Committee ought to be taking the lead on this. This shouldn't
be controversial.
My resolution is a bipartisan resolution. It deserves bipartisan
support. This is the least we can do. This is the least we can do.
When we go to war, our troops have no choice but to follow the orders
that are given to them. The bottom line is, we have a responsibility to
make sure they don't get sent into a mess, that we know what the hell
we are doing, that there is a clearly defined mission, and that this is
the right thing to do.
It is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. We have homeless
veterans. We can't provide people in this country with healthcare.
People don't have adequate housing. People are hungry.
You want to spend billions and trillions of dollars on another war.
Well, I don't want any part of it. Please vote for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am not going to talk to my colleagues because they are not going to
answer the question of why two convicted people, not just indicted,
were pardoned by the United States President.
Mr. Speaker, I will address my fellow Americans. Congress would need
to pass an Authorization for Use of Military Force if President Trump
wanted to put boots on the ground or conduct military strikes in
Venezuela to abide by the law.
For that, Republicans in Congress would need to cast their vote on
whether to commit U.S. Armed Forces to an open-ended conflict that
their constituents, the American people, certainly do not want.
Trump ran on ending forever wars, but now he has forgotten what they
are, what his own Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, characterized as
``interventionism, undefined wars, regime change . . . . and feckless
nation building.'' Yet, with Venezuela, Trump is provoking a new war
right in our backyard and threatening to destabilize the entire region.
Let's be clear: Claiming a war with Venezuela will be quick and easy
is a fantasy. Maduro is by no means a good guy. He lost the last
election and has violently repressed the Venezuelan people to stay in
power against their democratic will. To think that if the U.S. military
just chases him out, then Venezuela's military and armed groups around
the country will welcome democracy with open arms is naive at best.
This administration has no plan for the day after. It has no
strategy. If Members do not vote for Mr. McGovern's War Powers
Resolution, they are signing their name to everything that comes after,
a forever war in our own hemisphere, a quagmire the likes of Vietnam in
a country twice the size of Iraq for a length of time that is
completely unknown.
How many billions of dollars of taxpayers' money would be spent so
Pete Hegseth can play a wartime general? How many U.S. servicemembers
would make the ultimate sacrifice so Donald Trump can do in Latin
America what Vladimir Putin does in Europe?
The power over matters of war and peace belongs to the United States
Congress. It is our most solemn duty given in the Constitution of the
United States, and votes like this are our most consequential. They are
literally about life and about death.
If history has taught us anything, it is that wars are easy to start,
but they are incredibly difficult to end. The choice you make on this
vote will carry a long, a very long, a very long part in this history.
Mr. Speaker, I will end with this. Let me just tell you, the cameras
of history are rolling. What will be the downstream effects of
destabilizing the country, an entire region? Anyone who tells you they
know, they are lying.
What we do know is that the American people don't want this. That is
unequivocal. Even President Trump's supporters do not understand why he
would do this.
I ask you, let's vote in this House for Mr. McGovern's bill. It is
the right thing to do. Vote so the American people know how you stood
at this point in history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The defense of America is what is on the table here. The questions
are simple: Does the President have the authority to defend the United
States of America against these cartels, against their drugs, their
beheadings, their murders? Does he or does he not?
My Democrat friends are arguing that he does not have the authority
to defend our country, to protect the people of the United States of
America, to protect the people in their communities. That is their
argument.
The fact of the matter is, the President has the authority to defend
our country, and he has the duty to defend our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of December 16, 2025, the previous
question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________