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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the President?

The Solicitor General said:

Well, we don't contend that. Again, that would be . . . an abdication, not a delegation.

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source