Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members and staff rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of September 11.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, next week, the country will observe a solemn anniversary. Twenty-five years ago, on September 11, this Nation suffered the deadliest terrorist attack ever to occur on American soil. We stand together today as Democrats and Republicans united to honor the 2,977 victims who lost their lives that day, and those who are continuing to die today from the toxic dust inhaled at the World Trade Center, to lend our support to those who were injured, to comfort those who are grieving the loss of a loved one, and to recognize the courage and sacrifice of all those who came to our aid on September 11 and in the days to follow. The deadly attacks targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We also remember the tremendous courage of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 who sacrificed themselves to prevent another attack and crashed the plane into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There are many who believe that the intended target of that flight was the very Capitol building in which we are now standing. We mourn the loss of all those who gave their lives on September 11, and we give our thanks to the many first responders who risked their own lives to save others. Many of them continue to live with the scars today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that where the Twin Towers once stood, a memorial and the new World Trade Center have arisen. It is a testament to our resiliency and resolve in the face of tragedy and a resounding message to the terrorists that the United States continues to stand tall. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on July 13 through 16, 2026, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 234; YEA on Roll Call No. 235; NAY on Roll Call No. 240; NAY on Roll Call No. 241; NAY on Roll Call No. 242; NAY on Roll Call No. 243; NAY on Roll Call No. 244; NAY on Roll Call No. 245; YEA on Roll Call No. 246; NAY on Roll Call No. 247; YEA on Roll Call No. 248; and YEA on Roll Call No. 249.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 23, 2026, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 223, and YEA on Roll Call No. 224.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' don't say trans and forced outing bill. This misguided legislation is a cruel attack on transgender children who exist, whether the other side wants to recognize that or not, who are already among the most vulnerable in our society. This bigoted bill not only infringes on American students' First Amendment rights by censoring curricula and banning books, but it also tries to erase American history and to erase the existence of transgender people by banning discussions of LGBTQ people and their families. Furthermore, while many parents are aware of and supportive of their children's gender expression, in some cases, outing a student could lead to abuse or putting the child in harm's way. We should not force teachers to knowingly put vulnerable students in danger or to violate the trust they have built. Every student deserves a safe and affirming school environment to learn, to develop social skills, and to grow. But Republicans are focused on spreading hate instead of protecting and supporting students. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2616. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to this bill from the National Women's Law Center Action Fund. National Women's Law Center Action Fund, Washington, DC, April 28, 2026 Re Vote NO on H.R. 2616, Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, we urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2616, the so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, which would result in an unprecedented federal intrusion into curriculum decision making and classroom discussions. The NWLC Action Fund firmly opposes this anti-trans bill that will censor classroom discussions, police free expression, add administrative burdens to schools, and encourage unequal treatment of marginalized youth in schools. H.R. 2616 would withhold federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for education agencies that ``teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.'' This provision would both dictate curricular choices while also serving as a ``Don't Say Trans'' bill that could chill classroom discussions. Federal law has long recognized that the federal government should not intervene in state and local curriculum development, with the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 clarifying that the federal government shall not ``mandate, direct, or control ... instructional content or materials [and] curriculum.'' At least eight states have local laws that require LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. H.R. 2616 would dictate federal limitations on curriculum, overriding state discretion and opening the door to far greater federal involvement in deciding what is taught in the classroom. Additionally, the prohibition on ``advanc[ing] concepts'' could be construed--as other similar state ``Don't Say Trans'' bills have been--to silence discussion or support for transgender people. This could impact the availability of Gay-Straight Alliance and Gender-Sexuality Alliance (GSA) clubs to support LGBTQIA+ students, result in prohibitions on Safe Space stickers or Pride flags, and also result in hostile employment environments for transgender teachers who simply talk about their own identity or experience. H.R. 2616 is overbroad and would both infringe on free expression and create additional administrative burdens for schools by requiring parental consent before schools could recognize a change in a child's preferred name, pronouns, gender marker, or sex-based accommodations. Although the bill is clearly targeting transgender and gender-expansive students, the overbroad requirement will have an impact on all students who want to be known by a nickname. In 2023, for example, Florida required schools to collect consent forms before 3 student named Robert could be known as Bobby. Ultimately, this additional administrative burden will chill classroom dynamics, requiring forms before decency and putting bureaucracy in between teachers and their students. H.R. 2616 would encourage unequal treatment of marginalized youth in schools. Inclusive policies that affirm LGBTQIA+ students' identities play a critical role in mitigating social isolation, harassment, and adverse mental health outcomes, especially for transgender and gender-expansive students. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reported staggering mental health disparities faced by LGBTQIA+ youth, with the majority (53 percent) of transgender students having seriously considered attempting suicide in 2023. Although schools often already encourage family involvement where possible, H.R. 2616 will remove essential tools that allow educators and school staff to thoughtfully and carefully support transgender youth as they're navigating the coming out process. We strongly urge a NO vote on H.R. 2616. Please reach out if you have any additional questions about this bill or our position. Best, Brian Dittmeier, Director of LGBTQIA+ Equality, National Women's Law Center Action Fund.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, FISA section 702 can be a powerful tool against foreign threats, but without significant guardrails against abuse, it is also a massive threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. That is why I must oppose this legislation. I have worked for many years, in a bipartisan fashion, to include major reforms to section 702, and I was looking forward to working with my colleagues again to strengthen these protections during this reauthorization. However, the new provisions in this bill are simply a fig leaf and do not represent real reform. In particular, the supposed new warrant requirement is nothing more than a restatement of current law and completely misses the point of reform. It is already unlawful to target the communications of Americans under section 702. That is not the problem. The problem is what to do with the massive amounts of U.S. person information that is swept up along with foreign communications. The intelligence community is not supposed to search this data except under strict protocols. Yet we know that these protocols are violated all the time. The only solution is to require a probable cause warrant if the government wants to search the 702 database for U.S. person information. That is what this debate is about, and that is the bare minimum demanded by the Fourth Amendment. The Trump administration's argument appears to be: Trust us. However, that is not good enough for any administration, and especially not for this administration, which has already shown a shocking disregard for Americans' civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, we should get this right. We should work together, as we have in the past, to strike the right balance between security and liberty. We should put in a probable cause warrant requirement. Until then, vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Garcia and Mr. Neguse for organizing this Special Order hour about President Trump's budget request for next year. The one saving grace of the President's budget is how clearly it demonstrates the failed policies and misplaced priorities of the White House and the Republican Congress. While proposing a massive increase in defense spending to support a reckless war of choice in Iran and supporting numerous policies to protect the billionaire class, the Trump budget would slash programs that provide healthcare, education, and housing to working Americans and would do nothing to lower gas prices or make groceries more affordable. While there are too many outrages contained in this budget to mention all of them, I want to focus on one program in particular that highlights the senseless cruelty represented by this budget: the President would completely eliminate support for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, program. HOPWA provides critical housing support to hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families across the country. Housing is one of the greatest needs for those living with HIV/AIDS, and it is among the strongest predictors of access to treatment and health outcomes. Unstable housing or homelessness is linked to late or limited access to care, higher viral loads, increased hospitalizations, and premature death. HOPWA was created in 1990 to respond to the HIV crisis, and it has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. It has led to dramatic improvements in healthcare and reduced mortality for people living with HIV and AIDS. Yet, this President wants to cut HOPWA to the bone, leaving people with HIV and AIDS vulnerable to more HIV transmissions and a spike in homelessness. Congress established HOPWA--under a Republican President, I might add--because of illegal discrimination in the private housing market against people with HIV and AIDS. As for public housing, many individuals with HIV and AIDS on the waiting list for housing tragically died while waiting for an open unit. HOPWA changed that. A study from 2010 found that HOPWA has been tremendously effective in improving the physical health and housing status of enrollees. These gains did not come overnight. They came from funding this program year by year for over 30 years, and Donald Trump wants to gut all of it. I was proud to lead 107 of my colleagues in supporting HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2027 appropriations, and I am outraged at the President's disregard for vulnerable Americans. We must protect HOPWA and stand up for all Americans in need.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today, alongside my colleagues in the New York delegation, to mourn the loss of our dear friend and former colleague, Eliot Engel. Over the course of a lifetime in public service, including more than three decades in Congress, Eliot was a tireless champion for the people of the Bronx, Westchester, and Rockland County. Throughout his career, his hard work and fierce advocacy improved the lives of countless people in the United States and across the world. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was a leader on such issues as healthcare, energy, and consumer protection. Yet, Eliot had perhaps his greatest impact as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he led with integrity and experience, lending strength and credibility to America's role in the world. Among his many accomplishments, he played a crucial role in protecting the people of Kosovo and combating child labor. Most of all, he will be remembered as an unwavering friend to Israel. As the Congressional Jewish Caucus noted upon his passing, Eliot Engel ``is among the pantheon of champions of our people who have served with distinction in the Halls of Congress.'' His legacy of service to New York, to the Nation, and to the world lives on through the issues he fought for and the lives he touched. Our thoughts are with his wife, Pat, and all of his loved ones. May his memory be a blessing. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members and staff rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of Chairman Eliot Engel.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Isabelle Schindler for her outstanding service to my office and the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District. A native New Yorker, Isabelle graduated from University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy. She has worked for Congressman Eliot Engel and served as a Senate Page for Senator Charles Schumer from New York. Isabelle worked on a variety of voter engagement projects in both New York and Michigan before joining my staff in the House of Representatives. In 2023, Isabelle became my Scheduler while I was serving as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. She did an excellent job coordinating appointments with constituents, stakeholders, Members of Congress, House Leadership, and members of the Judiciary Committee staff She quickly took on more than scheduling and expanded her role in the office, earning her a promotion to DC Operations Manager. Isabelle was a team player and was always willing to step up and take on more responsibilities. She assisted our press operation, held legislative meetings with constituents and interest groups, and covered the arts portfolio for our office. She was instrumental in the introduction of the American Royalties Too (ART) Act and worked with our team on the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR) Act to make it easier to recover artwork lost or stolen between 1933 and 1945 because of Nazi persecution. During the annual appropriations process, she registered my support for hundreds of legislative programs and initiatives including critical Community Project Funding requests which brought tens of millions of dollars into our New York district. After I announced my decision not to seek re-election, Isabelle worked diligently to organize my vast collection of physical files to ensure they could be properly reviewed and archived for future generations. Isabelle was a fantastic intern coordinator and managed 18 interns during her time in my office. She took her leadership responsibilities seriously and went out of her way to provide interesting educational opportunities for the interns both on Capitol Hill and throughout Washington, D.C., including tours of the White House and various government agencies. Several of her former interns have returned on visits to the office and have gone out of their way to express how influential Isabelle has been in their career development and how they still haven't had a supervisor who was as kind, encouraging, and empowering as she was. I will miss her cheerful presence, her ability to anticipate the needs of the office, and her diligence in completing projects on time or ahead of schedule. She was a trusted, reliable professional member of my staff, and I deeply appreciate her service. Isabelle was invaluable to the office in ways that went beyond her defined role. Each and every staffer she worked with grew to appreciate how much she contributed to the office culture. She went above and beyond to make sure everyone felt welcome and supported, birthdays were celebrated, we showed our appreciation for one another as we hit career milestones and transitions, and we cared for one another during stressful times. She did this with grace, positivity, and humility. I hope she realizes how lucky we all feel to have worked with her and how jealous we are of the people she will work with in the future. One cannot speak about Isabelle, without mentioning her sweet dog, Ginger, who became the unofficial mascot of NY-12. In her free time, Isabelle enjoys travelling the world with her family--including trips to Brazil, Japan, Mexico City, Paris, the U.K. and Thailand. The staff love hearing about her trips and her perspective on the people, the food, and culture of the places she visits. She is a joy and an inspiration to us all. I hope she continues to find opportunities to see the world. As Isabelle moves on to a new opportunity in another Congressional office, I wish her the best of luck and lots of future successes. I thank her for her service and commend her for a job well done.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this dangerous, dishonest, and undemocratic resolution. It is dangerous because it would require shredding the social safety net and gutting vital investments in healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety. It is dishonest because the same Republicans who hold all the levers of power can pass a balanced budget any time they want, but instead they pass tax cuts for billionaires, creating trillions of dollars in deficits. It is fundamentally undemocratic because it bakes in policy choices that should be the decision of future Congresses. Each Congress, elected by the people, should decide the contours of its own budget, but this resolution requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes but only a simple majority to cut taxes. That puts a thumb on the scale for massive spending cuts rather than ensuring that billionaires pay their fair share. If my Republican colleagues believe so strongly in a balanced budget, then they should pass one. However, this resolution, which will never become law, is nothing more than a press release that lets them pretend to care about deficits without doing the hard work of actually legislating. Vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1884, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, or the HEAR Act. As the lead House Democratic sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I am proud to have helped bring together my colleagues to ensure this bill is passed and sent to the President's desk. During the Holocaust, the Nazis stripped Jewish families of countless works of art, culture, and heritage. The effects of these atrocities are still being felt today by survivors and their families. In 2016, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and I introduced the first HEAR Act, which was a landmark bill that aimed to aid these victims and their families in recovering their rightful property, a small act of light in the memory of the darkest period in human history. I am grateful that Congress passed that measure unanimously and that President Obama signed it into law. Unfortunately, time has demonstrated that the original HEAR Act was not sufficient. In addition to the bill's impending expiration, more than 100,000 of the over 600,000 works of art looted by the Nazis remain unrecovered. We must confront this unacceptable and repugnant reality, which continues to allow entities and individuals to profit off the Jewish people's pain. We must reaffirm that, in the United States, every family member with a credible claim deserves to have their day in court, with their case heard on the merits alone. Justice must not be denied due to procedural technicalities and legislative sunset provisions. While we cannot reverse the horrors of the Holocaust, we can ensure that in an American courtroom, the truth of a family's legacy carries more weight than a legal loophole. Some might have you believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill addresses a problem mostly for Europe to resolve, but they would be wrong. In fact, the September 2025 report from the World Jewish Restitution Organization found that U.S. museums hold well over 100,000 objects that were in Europe during the Holocaust, yet only about 10 percent of those objects have been made publicly accessible online for provenance research. Additionally, among 160 major museums in the United States, only 21 percent provide easily accessible object-level Nazi-era provenance information. If relevant pieces are not made available for research, how can we even know the true scope of this problem? What do the holders of these pieces have to hide? This is not an issue that is relevant only to decades-old legal cases or an issue faced only by a few dying survivors and their families. Nazi-looted art is still being discovered regularly. Just a few months ago, an online auction was intercepted in Ohio for two 17th century floral paintings by a famous Dutch still-life painter with original Nazi inventory numbers, S-16 and S-17, still on the back. The works had been sitting in an abandoned safe deposit box in Texas for decades before surfacing. In 2023, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office seized seven works by a famous Austrian expressionist painter, valued at nearly $10 million, that had for decades been displayed in a variety of museums and collections in New York. The DA's office rightfully returned the pieces to the heirs of Fritz Grunbaum, a Jewish collector murdered at Dachau concentration camp in 1941. That is why we must reauthorize and improve the HEAR Act of 2016 by passing the bill before us today, to ensure that the provenance of pieces that can be proven are able to be fully litigated on their merits alone, and to send a clear message from the Halls of Congress to those who knowingly hold Holocaust-looted art that the United States will no longer tolerate such barbaric behavior. It is important for us to be abundantly clear about what this bill does and does not do. Fundamentally, this bill seeks to ensure that claims regarding Nazi- looted art are decided on their merits alone, without hiding behind procedural technicalities. The bill also eliminates the original HEAR Act sunset provision, which is scheduled to expire in December 2026. That deadline was intended to encourage museums and holders to complete provenance research on the relevant pieces and to resolve any applicable claims. Unfortunately, this limited time frame has allowed some institutions to delay, withhold information, and run out the clock. I hope we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that justice for victims of the Holocaust and their families should not come with an expiration date. Here is what this bill does not do. It does not decide who wins and loses any case. It does not undermine, in letter or intent, any agreements made by any entity regarding any Holocaust-related or other matters. It does not impact or seek to influence any other categories of Holocaust claims outside of those that are art-related and specifically described in the legislation. The issues this legislation seeks to address are not new. In fact, it even appeared in the early 2000s popular TV show ``The West Wing.'' In a second- season episode, a Jewish woman on a White House tour begins screaming after recognizing a painting that had belonged to her father in France before it was seized by the Vichy regime during the Holocaust and later gifted to the White House. In the television show, the painting is swiftly and voluntarily returned to the woman and her family. The show is obviously a work of fiction, but if all similar claims were resolved in such a way in reality, there would be much less need for this legislation. Unfortunately, like much of ``The West Wing,'' such a resolution is too good to be true. Finally, there are many individuals and organizations that have worked hard to draft and promote this legislation. I thank all of them, and especially the Art Ashes organization. Without their tireless advocacy, this day would not be possible. I also thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee) for her partnership in introducing this bill in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to ensure that victims of the Holocaust and their families are able to have their claims heard on their merits alone. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and reasserting Congress' constitutional responsibility. As the gentleman from Florida stated, the President has the power to react to an attack on the United States. He does not have the power to start a war. President Trump's illegal strikes against Iran are dragging the United States into another costly war in the Middle East. To be clear, I shed no tears over the Ayatollah's death. His brutality was responsible for the deaths of scores of his own people, and he directed terrorist proxies around the world. Yet, his removal is unlikely to bring about the revolution and regime change that the President seeks. We had a diplomatic agreement with Iran that did contain their nuclear threat with constant verification, but President Trump tore up that agreement. This unnecessary attack is a clear violation of the Constitution. Kings often plunged their nations into wars for plunder or avarice. The Constitution gave the power to decide on war or peace to Congress so that no President could act as a king. That is precisely what the President is doing. We must pass this resolution to chastise President Trump and to reassert what the Constitution provides: that only Congress can decide to commit this Nation to war. I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to the blizzard in New York City, I was unable to travel to Washington and I missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 71, YEA on Roll Call No. 72, NAY on Roll Call No. 73, NO on Roll Call No. 74, YEA on Roll Call No. 75, and NAY on Roll Call No. 76. personal explanation

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because I cannot, in good conscience, vote to spend one more cent on ICE. I will not fund an agency that acts like an American gestapo. The Trump administration has launched a brutal and reckless campaign to strike fear in immigrant communities across the country, and ICE is on the front lines, using aggressive and violent tactics that too often end in tragedy. I cannot support one more cent for an agency that would recklessly take the life of Renee Good, an innocent and defenseless young woman. I cannot support one more cent for masked agents arresting U.S. citizens, pulling people out of their homes, tearing children away from their parents, and stating that it is exempt from the constitutional requirement for search warrants. I cannot support one more cent for detention facilities with the highest death rate in decades and that fail to meet the basic medical needs of detainees. No wonder they refuse to allow access to Members of Congress. To support one more cent for an agency with such disregard for the rule of law and basic human decency would be a moral outrage. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Andrew Heineman for nearly seven years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District and to the United States House of Representatives. A native of California, Andrew attended California State University, Northridge, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in Political Science and International Relations. His early political work included opposing Proposition 8 in California and later serving as an organizer on the Obama for President campaign, where he was known for knocking on even the most difficult doors. Andrew later moved to Washington, D.C., where he began his congressional career in the office of Congresswoman Doris Matsui. There, he worked his way from Staff Assistant to Legislative Correspondent to Legislative Assistant. In 2019, I was fortunate to have Andrew join my Washington, D.C. office, working primarily on Transportation and Infrastructure issues, before becoming my Legislative Director in 2022. In this role, he oversaw my entire Legislative agenda, prepared bills, amendments, and statements, and provided thousands of vote recommendations. As a key member of my senior staff, Andrew has been at the center of my legislative work. He was instrumental in helping pass my landmark legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act, which enshrined marriage equality into law. Andrew worked tirelessly to ensure its passage in both the House and the Senate, and it was a privilege to celebrate with him at the White House for the bill's signing into law. He was also central to the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, skillfully negotiating with stakeholders in Washington while simultaneously participating in a meeting with New York elected officials--demonstrating his knowledge and strong political acumen. As the head of the legislative team, he has served as a mentor for countless Legislative Staffers. Andrew has been a leader on transportation issues in my office, staffing me on the Committee and advancing critical infrastructure priorities such as the Cross Harbor Rail Project and the Gateway Tunnel, helping ensure that New York City remains the public transit capital of the world. He led our efforts to establish congestion pricing in Manhattan and fend off attacks by President Trump and Secretary Duffy. During his tenure, Andrew held hundreds of meetings with stakeholder groups from across the district, serving as a trusted representative of my office. He consistently brought deep knowledge and a strong understanding of complex issues to every engagement. He also led numerous New York Delegation letters and served as a valued resource for staff across the House. His extensive network of colleagues and friends on Capitol Hill is a testament to the respect he has earned throughout the institution. Outside of his official duties, Andrew has remained deeply involved with the California State University, Northridge Semester in Washington Program, where he teaches and mentors students pursuing careers in public service. His commitment to these students reflects dedication to helping others. I am glad that Andrew is remaining on the Hill and I am sure that I will see him around Rayburn. I look forward to seeing where his career will take him and thank him for his excellent service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 343 and NO on Roll Call No. 344.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, prior to the Trump Administration, the United States followed a policy of interdiction to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean. Over the past decade, that approach led to a steady decline in Venezuela's role as a major drug transit route. It relied on stopping vessels, inspecting cargo, and arresting suspects where evidence existed. This Administration has shamefully abandoned that lawful and effective approach in favor of bombing boats and committing extrajudicial killings at sea. There is no operational reason for abandoning interdiction, which worked, respected the rule of law, and avoided the use of lethal force where arrest and prosecution were possible. After decades of forever wars, the American people are sick and tired of being dragged into needless armed conflicts. Despite that, President Trump escalated his reckless campaign against Venezuela even further last night, pushing the Nation closer to a war the American people do not want. For weeks, the Administration has carried out lethal strikes on small boats in Venezuelan waters, killing dozens of people without any authorization from Congress. These killings occurred without due process and without any explanation for why the vessels could not have been stopped, inspected, and the individuals on board arrested and prosecuted. Most disturbing of all, the Administration carried out a so-called ``double-tap'' strike, deliberately targeting wounded survivors after an initial attack. That conduct is indefensible and inconsistent with the rule of law and the values the United States claims to uphold. The President is also asking the American people to accept a justification that does not withstand scrutiny. The Administration claims these killings are about stopping drugs, but there is no credible evidence that Venezuela is a significant source of fentanyl entering the United States. The fentanyl crisis is driven overwhelmingly by synthetic opioids manufactured elsewhere and smuggled through established land routes, not by small boats off the Venezuelan coast. And Trump's professed concern about drug trafficking rings hollow when he issued a pardon to the former president of Honduras after a U.S. jury convicted him of running a violent drug-trafficking conspiracy to move massive quantities of cocaine toward the United States. If Trump were serious about stopping drugs and not using counternarcotics as a pretext for military escalation and regime change, he would not be letting convicted traffickers walk free while eyeing Venezuela's vast oil resources. To this day, the Administration has not provided Congress with a public legal justification for these killings, nor has it explained the legal authority it claims to rely on. Congress and the American people deserve to see the legal rationale for the use of lethal force carried out in their name. History teaches that unlawful uses of force cannot be excused by secrecy or by claims of simply following orders. Responsibility does not vanish up and down the chain of command when the law is violated. As international tribunals have long made clear, including at Nuremberg, individuals are responsible for war crimes and unlawful killings even when acting under superior orders. That principle must apply here as well. A future Administration committed to the rule of law will have a responsibility to investigate these actions fully and hold accountable those responsible for unlawful killings carried out in the name of the United States. The Constitution is clear: the power to authorize war belongs to Congress, and Congress alone. No President gets a blank check to wage war by decree. That is why today, I proudly voted for two War Powers resolutions to block further escalation and reassert Congress's constitutional authority. It is unfortunate that Democrats had to force these votes under the War Powers Resolution just to ensure Congress carries out its duties, despite Speaker Johnson's best efforts to keep them off the House floor and avoid accountability. The American people do not want another needless war, and I refuse to let our service members be put in harm's way for an escalation that Congress never approved.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2025, I missed votes due to personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 337; NAY on Roll Call No. 338; YEA on Roll Call No. 339; NAY on Roll Call No. 340; YEA on Roll Call No. 341; and NAY on Roll Call No. 342.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 335 and YEA on Roll Call No. 336. personal explanation

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 333 and NAY on Roll Call No. 334. Personal Explanation

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 2025, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 322; NAY on Roll Call No. 323; NAY on Roll Call No. 324; NAY on Roll Call No. 325; YEA on Roll Call No. 326; YEA on Roll Call No. 327; NAY on Roll Call No. 328; YEA on Roll Call No. 329; NAY on Roll Call No. 330; YEA on Roll Call No. 331; and YEA on Roll Call No. 332.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 317, NO on Roll Call No. 318, YEA on Roll Call No. 319, NAY on Roll Call No. 320, and YEA on Roll Call No. 321.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 2025, I missed votes due to a personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 315, and YEA on Roll Call No. 316.