Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, food costs are sky high, and millions of people across the country are losing their SNAP benefits due to Trump's big, ugly bill, which made the largest cut to food assistance and healthcare in American history. Amazing organizations, like Lorraine's Soup Kitchen & Pantry in Chicopee, Massachusetts, are working to bridge the gap so that families don't go hungry amid these reckless Republican cuts. Lorraine's, named after the first executive director of the soup kitchen, has been providing nutritious food and hope to families in western Massachusetts for 30 years. Under the incredible leadership of Kim Caisse, Lorraine's serves hot meals and provides nutritious pantry staples and produce to hungry families. As part of my statewide End Hunger Now tour, I visited the pantry with my friend, Richie Neal, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. We learned about an increase in need due to Republican cuts and talked directly with pantry workers and people experiencing hunger. As Congress prepares to consider the next farm bill, we must repeal the SNAP cuts enacted as part of the big, ugly bill and fully restore food assistance programs as we work to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, local grocers play a pivotal role in improving access to nutritious food. That is why I joined my dear friend and colleague, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, and State and local leaders on a visit to El Valle de la Sultana Market in Everett, Massachusetts, last Friday as part of my statewide End Hunger Now Tour. Victor and Martha Gutierrez and Audriana Perdomo own La Sultana markets, which have been providing cultural staples to the people of Everett, east Boston, and Somerville for 30 years. We visited the newest location in Everett, which was stocked with delicious and culturally appropriate foods like fresh produce and meat and heard directly from people who shop at the store for groceries. Their message was loud and clear. Skyrocketing food prices and cuts to SNAP are impacting their ability to feed their families. Their powerful stories provide me further motivation to fight Trump policies that are driving up the cost of food and to once and for all end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the staff on the Rules Committee, both the majority and the minority staff, because they put up with an awful lot. The way this House is being run, the process and procedures, are absolutely awful. Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a clown show, but that would be an insult to actual working clowns who probably lost their healthcare in the big, ugly bill that Republicans passed, but whatever. This is not the way this House of Representatives should be run. Out of the four appropriations bills before us, only one, the Defense bill, was given an amendment process, where the majority issued a call for amendments. Overall, 9 out of the 12 appropriation bills this cycle did not receive any call for amendments. In other words, nobody was asked to offer amendments to participate in this process. They were told that their views and their opinions didn't matter. Last week, Republicans made in order 2 out of 78 amendments submitted to the two-bill minibus that we considered. Again, neither of those amendments had a call for amendments prior. The week before, Republicans made zero amendments in order on a three-bill minibus out of 40 submitted. Only one of those bills had an amendment process prior. Today, they are making 2 amendments in order out of the 164 amendments submitted to the final appropriation bills before us. They were submitted by Democrats and by Republicans, so 99 percent of those amendments that were offered have been blocked. The Republicans went on last night about regular order, but they only solicited amendment ideas on 3 out of the 12 appropriation bills that fund our government. Give me a break. This is not the way this place is supposed to be run. Again, I get it. They are worried about pleasing the rebels within the Republican Conference who always threaten to bring down a rule if they don't get what they want, so I assume that is what happened by making two Republican amendments in order today. Here is another thing that I noticed in this bill. There is this creation of an ethanol domestic energy council, aimed at kind of buying off people from Iowa, I guess. In the rule, it says this council will be appointed by the Speaker of the House to develop legislative solutions to address the crisis facing our Nation's farmers and refiners. I asked in the Rules Committee whether the Speaker would only appoint Republicans. The answer was that you can submit whatever you want to the Speaker. It is his decision, but we don't know. So, I don't know whether this is a bipartisan council or just a partisan council. A question was asked in the Rules Committee: Will it only be Members of Congress on this council, or could members of industry or the energy companies be on this council? We were told that they think it is just Members of Congress, but we don't know. I mean, I don't know. Those are pretty relevant questions, and this is kind of being tossed in here essentially to buy people's votes. Here is the deal: To those Republicans who are being bought off by this creation of this new council, let me recall back in September when we were having a debate on whether to kind of extend the pause on Trump's terrible tariffs. All of a sudden, we were told that we had to pause the vote. We went on and on and on for a while, waiting and waiting and waiting, and then we were told that there would be a special trade working group established. The press reported that Congressman Adrian Smith, who is the head of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, would be the head of that working group, and they would address the issue of tariffs. They said it would be a thoughtful process. Mr. Smith was before the Rules Committee the other day, and I asked him about this trade working group that apparently bought off Republican votes, Republicans who were concerned about the tariffs. I asked him who the Members are on this trade working group. He said that he talks to all Members. I asked who the Members are on this trade working group, and he didn't have an answer. Do you know why? They never appointed anybody to be on the trade working group. I asked him how many hearings, gatherings, and meetings this trade working group has had. He couldn't answer that because they never had any meetings. I asked if there were any publications or reports that have been produced by this trade working group, and he couldn't answer that because there were none. Now, we are being told--now, Republicans who are kind of concerned about the issue of ethanol are being told that we are going to create this council for you, this new working group for you, and you should be happy. I am just going to say this, with all due respect to my Republican colleagues: Those of you who are bought off by this in order to vote for this rule, where I come from, we have a name for that, and that is ``cheap date'' because that is what this is. At the end of the day, nothing--nothing--will end up happening. I am just going to say one other thing before I get into the substance of these bills. When I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, I made nearly half of all amendments in order. This Republican majority has blocked 80 percent. That means Democrats--and, by the way, a lot of Republicans, a majority of Republican amendments have been blocked. Let me say that one more time. A majority of Republican amendments have been blocked. I don't know what is wrong with Members over there, but come on, a majority of Republican amendments have been blocked, and you continue to go along to get along. They are not just blocking us. They are blocking their own Members. There have been 106 closed rules so far in this Congress, more than Democrats had in the entire Congress the last time we were in charge. Again, I know you have a slim majority, but here is another fact that you ought to let sink in: We have had the fewest votes on the floor in 35 years. I mean, that is what this Congress is all about. Again, I would just say, as somebody who loves this institution, who believes in this institution--and I know many of my Republican colleagues feel the same way--I mean, things have to change. This place has become an institution where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. All the issues that I hear about in my townhalls--the high cost of healthcare, rising food prices, the high cost of utilities--we don't talk about those things here. We are dealing with messaging bills. When it comes to anything of substance, like these appropriations bills, we are basically told to take it or leave it, that our views don't matter. Again, this is not just Democrats, but Republicans, as well. Mr. Speaker, again, I am grateful for the hard work of the appropriators and their staffs. These bills are complicated, and the hours are brutal. In this political climate, getting anything done, let alone in a bipartisan way, is no small thing. While no bill is perfect, I agree with the chairwoman that there are provisions in this package that would make a difference in people's lives, and I think, in some cases, in a positive way. The three-bill minibus--Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, and Transportation-HUD--rejects President Trump's proposed $163 billion in cuts. It continues funding for priorities like medical research, NIH, opioid response grants, childcare, and Head Start. It includes badly needed funding to hire more than 2,500 air traffic controllers. Democrats blocked more than 40 poison-pill riders that Republicans tried to jam in on reproductive care, vaccines, sanctuary cities, and more. I thank Ranking Member DeLauro for holding the line and keeping that garbage out. I want to talk about something bigger than the line items because, in my view, these bills are being written as if we are still operating under rules that, let's be honest, this current administration does not recognize. The President has shown over and over again that he won't follow the rules. He treats the law like a suggestion. He treats Congress like an obstacle. He treats the Constitution like it is optional. When we respond with business as usual, that isn't responsible. It is naive. If we don't build in real guardrails, strong, enforceable guardrails, then we are not just funding programs, but we are handing over power. We are writing checks and crossing our fingers that an administration that is proud of breaking the rules will suddenly decide to behave. Here is the perfect example: This three-bill minibus increases defense spending by more than $8 billion above the President's own budget request, yet it does nothing to rein in this administration's recent illegal military actions around the world, nothing that makes clear that Congress and not the President decides when America goes to war. The same kind of blank-check governing is also present in the Homeland Security bill. Let's not mince words: ICE is out of control. We are watching Federal agents roll through communities like they are above the law: stopping people, harassing people, intimidating them, and, yes, shooting them. That is not America. That is not freedom. It sure as hell is not what our parents and our grandparents fought for. We have history in this country. We know exactly where ``show me your papers'' leads. We know what it looks like when a government decides that certain people don't belong and then builds an enforcement machine to terrorize them into submission. Yet, here we are, being asked to hand DHS more money with nowhere near the due diligence or the ironclad accountability that this moment demands. Hell, Republicans already supercharged DHS with $75 billion in their big, ugly bill last year. Now, we are supposed to keep feeding the beast? I say hell no. I don't think ICE deserves a single cent more, which is why I am voting ``no.'' I will acknowledge the work that went into these bills. I will acknowledge some provisions that could help people, but I do not trust this President. I do not trust Trump's OMB. I do not trust this administration, which has made lawlessness a habit, to follow the intent of Congress just because we typed it into statutory language. Call it Trump derangement syndrome, as some of my Republican friends have labeled it. I call it learning from experience. I call it paying attention. This is our last real leverage point. Once we fund it, once we sign the checks, the power shifts. With this President, that is terrifying because he is erratic and lawless. We tried to put up guardrails. We offered amendments to rein him in. The Republicans all voted them down, every single one of them. They voted against accountability, and they voted against constraints. It is crazy. It tells you everything you need to know, Mr. Speaker. They would rather give him a blank check than do their job as a coequal branch. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman just listing off a bunch of criminals, and we don't take issue with arresting violent criminals. Violent criminals should not be on our streets no matter where they are born, and they should face justice. But the issue is that ICE is terrorizing communities and attacking people, including U.S. citizens. In Minnesota, a U.S. citizen said ICE took him at gunpoint in his underwear, without a warrant, in front of his 4-year-old grandchild. In another instance, a U.S. citizen went on his lunch break, and masked Federal agents detained him in a choke hold. In Miami, Federal agents ripped a woman from her car as she screamed that she was a U.S. citizen. ICE agents in Minnesota ate lunch in a small-town Mexican restaurant. When they were done enjoying their meal, they detained two workers who served them. In California, a U.S. citizen on his way to work at a food bank pulled over to warn Federal agents that they should wrap up their stop of another individual before school-age children gathered for the bus. Moments later, an ICE officer shot him in the back. In Chicago, ICE agents stormed an apartment complex by helicopter as families slept and deployed chemical agents near a public school. Mr. Speaker, ICE is wreaking havoc on people all over this country, trampling over the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens at every turn. U.S. citizens across the country are carrying their passports out of fear of being detained without cause. There are reports of Native Americans who are U.S. citizens being detained by ICE. Thirty-two people have died in ICE custody in 2025-- 32. It was ICE's deadliest year in over two decades. In just the first 9 months of Trump's second term, over 170 U.S. citizens were detained by ICE, and nearly 20 were children. Two dozen were held without being able to call lawyers or their family. These citizens have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased, and shot by immigration agents. Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on and on. Let me be clear. This is an out-of-control agency at war with communities around the country. They don't give a damn if you are a U.S. citizen. The silence on the other side of the aisle is outrageous, as if this is no big deal. Wait until it happens to you or a loved one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up S.J. Res. 88, which would allow for an up-or-down vote on whether to terminate President Trump's global tariffs. Mr. Speaker, on April 2 of last year, President Trump announced he was opposing tariffs on virtually all countries, including our closest allies like the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan--the list goes on--based on a bogus national emergency. He called it ``liberation day.'' Let me tell you that the only liberation my constituents have felt is money being liberated from their hard-earned paychecks because the price of basically everything has gone up since Donald Trump took office. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid $310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office compared to 2024. It is now abundantly clear that President Trump broke his promise to lower costs on day one, in large part due to his cost-increasing tariffs. Although the President and his cronies claim that these tariffs are paid by foreign governments, in reality, it is the American people who pay the tariffs. According to a newly published study, which analyzed $4 trillion in shipments over the past year, American consumers and importers paid 96 percent of the cost of tariffs, while foreign companies shouldered a measly 4 percent of the cost. Last October, more than 2\1/2\ months ago, the Senate sent to the House on a bipartisan basis this joint resolution to terminate the global tariffs. In this House, our Republican majority has continued to block a simple up-or-down vote. They have basically endorsed the increase in the cost of living for average people. Speaker Johnson promised his Members that he would create a working group to address the tariffs. We now know this tariff policy working group is a mirage. It doesn't exist. You got taken. When I ask the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade about the working group, which he was supposedly in charge of, he said he didn't know who was on it or whether or not it had ever met. Are you serious? Are you serious? Most Republicans, even the ones who oppose the tariffs in private, are continuing to go along to get along with this. When are Republicans who know better going to stand up against this crazy tariff policy that is raising costs at home and destroying our alliances? It is never too late to do the right thing. By voting to defeat the previous question, we can finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate President Trump's disastrous global tariffs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising an issue that he got a working group on--a working group that may meet or not meet, may have members or may not have members, and may do something or may not. Boy, wow, that is something. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize someone who has quietly made this place work day after day and vote after vote. Ray Salazar is leaving the House after more than 11 years of service to this institution and to the Democratic Caucus. I want to say plainly and on the record that we are thankful for his service. Ray started here the way that a lot of great public servants start: by showing up, doing the work, and earning trust. From an internship with Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, to Whip Hoyer's AmeriPAC, to becoming a special assistant to the Office of the Democratic Whip, Ray learned this place from the ground up. Ray then served as floor assistant for Whip Hoyer, floor director for Leader Hoyer, and deputy floor director and senior adviser. Most recently, he has been floor director for the Democratic Whip, Katherine Clark, helping Members to navigate the toughest moments, the longest days, and the most important votes. For the Rules Committee specifically, Members and staff relied on Ray for many, many years. Whether it was getting information about the floor at 1 o'clock in the morning or helping to solve tricky procedural problems, he has been a reliable and valued part of the Rules family. He is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University with a background in international relations, national security, and advanced military education focused on joint warfare. He understands the world. He understands the institutions. He understands that democracy runs on people who do the hard work, the unglamorous work. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ray for his professionalism, his steadiness, and his service. We will miss him on the floor, and we wish him nothing but success as he begins his next chapter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, after all the time that we spend together, the gentlewoman can just call me Jim. Mr. Speaker, let me close with this: Republicans are running this place like a clown show. Over and over again, House Republican leadership shuts down the amendment process. Over and over again, they limit debate. Over and over again, they tell Members to take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of all amendments were blocked. We had to have the Speaker up in the Rules Committee this morning because, apparently, the only way Republicans can get their amendments made in order around here is by blackmailing the Speaker and threatening to take down the rule. Last night, we had Members showing up with serious amendments, amendments aimed at basic accountability, basic guardrails, basic limits on a lawless administration. The leadership's answer is no, one structured rule for the minibus making in order two Republican amendments. Homeland is a closed rule entirely--no accountability, no guardrails, no nothing. That is not how the people's House is supposed to work, and it is especially dangerous right now because this is not a normal administration. This President has shown he will say one thing and then do another. He will assure Congress and then ignore Congress. Now, we are supposed to pass funding bills without ironclad guardrails on what this administration can do with that money, whether it is foreign adventurism, whether it is some half-baked scheme about Greenland, or whether it is building out a domestic secret police force that treats human beings like trash. Let's be honest. If you cannot trust an administration to follow the law, then you don't give them a blank check. That is exactly what this process risks doing. I want to see this House do its job. I want Members on both sides to be able to offer amendments, to debate them, and to vote on them. I want to see real constraints to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to violate rights, to trample the Constitution, or to fuel an agency like ICE that is behaving like it answers to nobody. I urge my colleagues: Do not rubberstamp a process that shuns accountability. Don't enable an administration that ignores Congress. Don't pretend that normal rules can contain abnormal lawlessness. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying something simple that shouldn't be controversial in the people's House. On questions of war and peace, on questions of life and death, Congress is not supposed to be a potted plant. We don't get paid to outsource hard decisions. We don't get brownie points for showing up. Our Founders weren't naive about threats, but they were realistic about power. That is why they chose to entrust Congress with the power to make war--not the President, not the courts, not the States--but the elected Representatives of the people. Call me crazy, but I think if we abdicate that power, we are not only doing a disservice to the people we represent but we are violating our sacred oath of office, our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The last time I brought up this resolution, I was told it was premature because there had been no strikes in Venezuela. Let me quote what my Republicans friends said in their own words. Chairman Mast said: `` . . . this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela.'' Congressman Keith Self said: `` . . . which is not necessary, as it removes our Armed Forces from hostilities against a country where there have been no hostilities.'' Congressman Warren Davidson said: `` . . . 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 a hypothetical future?'' Congressman Tom McClintock said: ``If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela . . . without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.'' Even Susie Wiles, the President's own Chief of Staff, said that if he were to authorize some activity on land, then we would need Congress. We got lots of smug lectures from the other side. Guess what. On January 3, 2026, not only did Donald Trump authorize land activity in Venezuela, but his administration did not come to Congress beforehand. We were not even the first group that he talked to after the attack on Venezuela. I guess the best we can get from the current majority here is that there is never a good time for Congress to assert its war powers. It is either too soon or it is too late. I don't think it is too late because we are still dealing with the consequences of this unauthorized and unlawful military strike. Nicolas Maduro, a brutal tyrant, was removed from power. The Trump administration replaced Maduro with his own damned vice president. Is that the big victory that my friends think we should be celebrating? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. They left in power the same illegitimate regime that rules through oppression, fraud, and violence. They left in control the same security apparatus that violates people's rights. They preserved the same corrupt cartel state. Am I missing something here? From what I can tell, the President put our troops in harm's way without congressional consent, all so that he could replace one dictator with another dictator. Everything is the same except the face at the podium. Now the President says he is the one running Venezuela. I don't even know what the hell that means. He says we control the oil. What happens if the Venezuelan people don't want that? Will he send troops into Venezuela? What is the clearly defined mission here? I don't know what it is. Look at what has happened since he claimed he is in charge. Repression has gotten worse. Security forces are interrogating people at checkpoints, confiscating phones, and detaining journalists. Again, I ask: What was this all about? We don't know what will happen next. Whether you support Trump's actions or oppose them, shouldn't we all agree that we should have a debate on this stuff and that we should authorize an expansion of military forces if that is what is in the future? That should be a debate. We should have a vote on it. That is all we are asking here. This is crazy. We can't be asleep at the switch. There is no oversight, no hearings, and no votes. It is just blind obedience to the executive. That is not the way this place is supposed to run. If my colleagues respect this institution, the House of Representatives, they will vote ``yes'' to stop this madness from going any further than it already has. We ought to vote on these issues. 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 just say to the distinguished chairman that his arguments are: It is either too early, or it is too late. Our troops were on the ground. Our troops were shot at. They were wounded. Thankfully, they are home and they are safe. With this, all we are saying here is that if you are going to expand and utilize the military again, you come to Congress and ask for a vote. That is not just our prerogative. It is our responsibility. It is in the Constitution. That is our damn job. If you don't want to do it, do something else. Yet it is our responsibility. In terms of the gentleman's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, I will simply suggest that maybe he and his team go to the Congressional Research Service and get a briefing to understand how it works, but this is our responsibility. It is our job. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps talking about the resolution, and here it is. I did talk about the resolution, and let's talk about the resolution again. I have it right here. It is two pages. The way the resolution is written is to comply with the War Powers Act. The resolution would simply prevent further escalation. If you are watching at home, read it yourself, H. Con. Res. 68. The reason we think we need to do that is because the administration already did not get permission before escalating the first time. By the chairman's logic, the only time we can ever have a vote is if there are physically boots on the ground. That just is logically insane. It doesn't comport with the way the War Powers Act is written. By his logic, the President should be able to launch a preemptive nuclear war without congressional authorization. That is nuts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I have still not gotten an answer to the only question that matters today: Why did we strike Venezuela, spending taxpayer money and putting American troops in harm's way to replace Maduro with his own Vice President, someone who is an illegitimate ruler who is just as ruthless and evil as Maduro? I don't know why we did that. What was the point? Not a single one of my colleagues can answer that question because they have no answer. They know voting for this resolution is right. If people want to put our troops in harm's way, if they genuinely believe more military action may be necessary in the future, if that is what you believe, whether to defend oil fields or to do something else, then you shouldn't just pound the damn lectern and wave the flag. You need to come before this entire Chamber to move a bill to authorize the use of military force. My friends should have the guts and backbone to put an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the floor. Spell out the mission. Spell out the objectives. Tell the American people how long it lasts, what it costs, why it matters, and how we get a legitimate, democratic government in Venezuela. Have the guts to vote. That is all this resolution is requiring, but don't give me this bs about how before the strikes it was premature to vote, and now it is too late. I have seen this movie before, Mr. Speaker. It always starts with the White House telling us that it will be quick, clean, and over in a matter of days. Then, months later, years later, you get troops deployed, kids coming home in caskets, and taxpayers paying for endless quagmires that never end, and the same people here on the floor telling us that we are premature or crying wolf are suddenly nowhere to be found. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Wars are easy to start, but they are hard as hell to stop. This resolution ought to pass no matter what you believe about further military involvement in Venezuela. What it says plainly is that if the President is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and a constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval. The people we represent did not send us here to be potted plants while the White House sleepwalks us into another mess. If this administration wants to escalate, make the case to the American people. Get consent through their elected Representatives. Follow the Constitution. Let me tell you what I think. I think this was all so that Donald Trump could get a good headline. I think it was so he could distract from the lousy economy and the fact that he is still covering up the Epstein files. I think it is about theft because the oil being taken from the people of Venezuela is being sold off and used to finance a slush fund in Qatar controlled by, you guessed it, Donald Trump. I don't think I have ever seen such a brazen example of corruption in my life. The President of the United States put American troops in harm's way so he could steal oil from Venezuela and deposit it into his own pocket. I think it is a disgraceful thing to do. It is time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grow a spine, obey their oath, and do their damn jobs. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution, whether you support President Trump's actions or you disagree with them. All this says is simply that if he wants to expand military operations, he has to come to Congress. It is that simple. It is not complicated. This is about the Constitution. This is about our oath. This is about representing the people who sent us here. I mean, to do anything less is a dereliction of our duty. I can't even believe that this is controversial, the idea that somehow we don't want to vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, whether it is in Venezuela or anywhere else. What is wrong with my colleagues who think this is such a big leap that this is somehow not justified? Read the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, with my friend Congressman Steve Lynch, I visited Quincy Community Action Programs in Quincy, Massachusetts, as part of my Statewide End Hunger Now tour. We kicked off our visit with QCAP CEO Beth Ann Strollo and some of the young kids in their Head Start program enjoying healthy breakfasts of yogurt and berries. They were so enthusiastic. Later on we heard from Ted Donnelly, who leads QCAP's food and nutrition programs at their South West Community Center. He spoke about the record-breaking number of people coming to the food pantry every month, especially when USDA let SNAP benefits lapse during the Republican shutdown. We also heard poignant stories from a few of QCAP's clients, Nisha, Marybeth, Tanya, and Danielle. One noted that she would love to work more hours, but if she does, she will lose all of her food benefits. Mr. Speaker, my visit to QCAP strengthened my resolve even more to fight back against the Trump administration's vicious attacks against our antihunger programs and end hunger now.