Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Hostilities Within or Against Venezuela That Have Not Been Authorized By Congress--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, over the past 2 months, President Trump has ordered 16 airstrikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing more than 65 people. His administration boasts that they are targeting drug-trafficking organizations. Yet Congress and the American people have received minimal information about the intelligence supporting these strikes, the legal framework governing these strikes, or the strategic objective they are meant to accomplish.

I want to be clear about something at the outset: I have spent years advocating for stronger action against drug cartels that poison our communities. I have consistently voted to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to dismantle these criminal networks. I have supported international cooperation to target these organizations at their source. And like everyone here, I recognize the cartels are a scourge and they must be confronted aggressively and dismantled thoroughly.

But that is not what is happening here. Let me begin with the most fundamental question: What is the operation actually meant to accomplish?

The administration has emphasized fentanyl as the primary justification for these strikes. Yet their own officials have acknowledged that cocaine is the predominant drug trafficked through these Caribbean routes. The fentanyl that is devastating American communities flows overwhelmingly through different routes. So what problem are we actually trying to solve?

And I think it should be obvious you cannot bomb your way out of a drug crisis. The demand that motivates drug trafficking is not found in the Caribbean. It is located in communities across America where people are suffering from addiction, where economic opportunity has dried up, where the social fabric has frayed. Military strikes do nothing to address those root causes.

Indeed, the significant budgetary attacks on Medicaid and other programs--health programs--will further undermine our attempts to control demand and to solve our drug problem. We have been down this road many times before in many parts of the world. We have seen what happens when military force is employed without clear objectives, without defined endpoints, without an honest assessment of what military power can and cannot achieve. The so-called ``war on drugs'' has been waged for decades. It has cost billions of dollars and countless lives, and it has not solved the problem.

As we expand this military operation in South and Central America, we have to ask: What does victory look like? How do we know when this mission is complete?

I know when many of us considered the Iraq war, I think many failed to ask the fundamental question: What happens when we win? Because we won quickly and then found ourselves in a 20-year struggle throughout the region to maintain stability.

As I indicated before, more than 65 people have been killed across 16 strikes. Boats have been blown out of the water in videos released by the administration. But has the flow of fentanyl into America decreased? Has a single trafficking network been dismantled? The administration hasn't provided any evidence that these strikes are achieving anything beyond the destruction they document on camera.

This is not a strategy. This is violence without a strategic objective. The administration's legal justification shifts every week. First, they simply cited the President's article II authority and claimed that these cartels were terrorist organizations.

Then the President decided that America is in a ``non-international armed conflict,'' which is a dubious claim. Now, Secretary Hegseth has begun calling these cartels ``the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere,'' and declared open season on them.

But he seems to have forgotten an important fact: After 9/11, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, to provide the legal basis for using military force against al- Qaida. By Secretary Hegseth's own logic, this current operation requires congressional authorization.

But there is a deeper problem with the administration's analogy to terrorism. Terrorists pursue political objectives. Cartels pursue profit and power. They are criminals, not ideological combatants waging war against the United States. If the White House truly believed that these are terrorist organizations and the Defense Secretary truly thinks Tren de Aragua compares to al-Qaida, the administration should come to Congress and request a AUMF. The fact that they haven't is revealing.

When the legal justification keeps changing, it means that there is no clear mission to begin with. And here is what troubles me the most: the administration's refusal to explain itself, both to Congress and the American people. It suggests that they know this operation does not hold up to scrutiny.

Chairman Wicker and I have sent multiple requests to Secretary Hegseth to submit the basic information Congress is legally entitled to: execute orders, legal justifications, and intelligence underpinning individual strikes.

The Pentagon has taken more than 2 months to provide only some of this information and has refused to answer simple questions regarding the very limited information that has been provided to date.

And this is not a partisan complaint. These are statutory requirements that are being ignored and noticed by both sides of the aisle.

The United Nations has stated that these strikes ``violate international human rights law'' and find ``no justification in international law.'' Legal experts across the political spectrum have been nearly unanimous in denouncing these operations as unlawful. Yet the administration's response has been to withhold information rather than provide justification.

If this operation serves vital American interests, if it can achieve its stated objectives, and if it is legal under domestic and international law, then why won't the administration defend it before Congress and the American people? The obfuscation suggests they don't have genuine answers. The secrecy suggests they know this doesn't make sense.

Now the situation grows more dangerous. The USS Gerald R. Ford, our largest and newest aircraft carrier, is headed to the Caribbean, bringing additional warships and thousands of sailors and marines. This is not a limited operation; this is a major military buildup. To what end? The administration will not say. Against what enemy? They won't specify. For how long? They refuse to answer.

These operations risk destabilizing the region and provoking direct confrontation with Venezuela. We could be stumbling into another open- ended conflict without purpose or plan.

If the administration intends to escalate toward conflict with Venezuela, Congress has a constitutional duty to declare and authorize such action. We cannot sleepwalk into another war through incremental escalation while being kept in the dark.

To my Republican colleagues, I know many of you share concerns about endless American wars. I know many of you have questioned open-ended military commitments that lack clear strategic objectives. You have consistently opposed Executive overreach by previous Presidents in the manner of war.

These SOUTHCOM operations look like the beginning of exactly that kind of entanglement, and we are being asked to accept it on faith-- without information, without debate, without authorization.

Which brings me to the matter of constitutional authority. The Constitution is unambiguous. Article I, section 8 vests the power to declare war in Congress, not in the executive branch. This was not an oversight by the Founders; it was a deliberate choice borne from hard experience with monarchs who could commit their nations to war by decree.

The War Powers Resolution exists to give meaning to that constitutional principle. It requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing forces into hostilities and to obtain authorization within 60 days.

The Trump administration delivered its war powers notification to Congress on September 4. The 60-day window to receive congressional authorization closed on Monday without approval being rendered. A law- abiding administration would cease its operation, but the Trump administration continues on.

Incredibly, according to public reporting, the White House is apparently now arguing that these strikes don't constitute ``hostilities'' under the War Powers Act because American servicemembers aren't directly in harm's way while operating standoff weapons and drones. This is ridiculous. Most importantly, it is an insult to the men and women who are risking their lives flying aircraft, operating ships and submarines, and conducting reconnaissance in the region. They are very much in harm's way, and to say that this operation is so safe that it doesn't qualify as ``hostilities'' is embarrassing. Also, it suggests, perhaps, the logic that these really aren't military operations or hostilities; they are premeditated attacks to produce lethal effects on people who may or may not be drug dealers.

This new interpretation creates a dangerous precedent. If standoff weapons exempt military operations from congressional oversight, we have effectively granted the executive branch unlimited authority to wage war anywhere in the world so long as American forces can strike from a distance.

Does this mean that we can fire a long-range missile into another country because we are not in hostilities since there are no servicemembers directly in danger as we launch the missile from our territory? That logic does not hold up. That represents, indeed, a fundamental rewriting of our Constitution--not through amendment or legislation but through one man's decision.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I ask you to consider what authority you would be comfortable granting to any President--not just this one but the next one and the one after that. The powers we recognize today will be exercised by future administrations. Constitutional principles should not bend with political convenience.

I believe that this is not a political debate; this is about the institution of Congress and the congressional and constitutional limits on Executive power. It is about insisting that before we commit American military forces to combat operations, before we take lives in America's name, we must have clear legal authority, credible justification, and strategic coherence.

If this operation makes strategic sense, let the administration make that case to Congress and the American people. Let them provide the legal justification that they have withheld. Let them explain the endgame. What happens when we win? What does winning mean? What are the limits of this operation?

Let them show us how blowing up boats in the Caribbean solves what the President has repeatedly said--the fentanyl crisis in each and every one of our States. They have not done so, and until they do, this operation does not deserve our support.

I urge my colleagues to hold the Trump administration accountable. The Constitution requires it. The American people deserve it. And we all have taken an oath to the Constitution, not the President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source