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. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Paul in introducing this War Powers Resolution that provides that we have not authorized the use of force against Venezuela.
We meet at a precarious moment, when we might be on the precipice of war with that country. Today, in the Caribbean or on its way to the region, are the following military assets: Three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the USS Gravely, Jason Dunham, and Sampson; the USS Lake Erie, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser; the USS Newport News, a nuclear attack submarine with torpedoes and Tomahawks; the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship equipped with a flight deck for F-35s, Ospreys, and attack helicopters; the MV Ocean Trader, a floating base designed for special operations; reaper drones, Harriet jets, and fifth generation fighters--incredibly lethal aircraft.
But this is not all. The largest aircraft carrier ever built, the USS Gerald R. Ford is on its way right now from the Mediterranean. This means we will see upward of an additional two dozen Super Hornets and two dozen additional F-35s. This warship will be accompanied by three additional destroyers, bringing at least 10 of America's best naval warships within striking distance of Caracas.
All told, there will be more than 400 missiles and vertical launch systems on Nicolas Maduro's doorstep--115 Tomahawks alone, with an additional 70 coming with the Ford.
Are we supposed to believe that this is only about striking speed boats? If so, why would there be 10,000 American servicemembers in the vicinity? Why fly three B-52s from the United States to the region? Why have B-1 supersonic bombers flown off the coast of Venezuela in just the last few weeks for a so-called ``bomber attack demonstration''?
That is not my definition of the mission. That is what the Pentagon called it. Bomber attack demonstrations for what--to blow up fishing vessels?
We all need to see that this has quickly become so much bigger and so much more dangerous. And maybe that was the point, to focus the narrative on drug trafficking so we don't recoil from what may be right around the corner with Venezuela, and that is the use of force to achieve the goal of regime change.
I understand the President, this weekend, said he was not ``inclined'' along those lines. But I urge my colleagues to look at the administration's actions and not merely its words, because if it walks like a military buildup and talks like a military buildup, it might just very well be a military buildup.
Two weeks ago, the President said:
We are certainly looking at land now, because we've got the sea very well under control.
And now we have the buildup I just described.
People may be putting a lot of stock into the President's most recent words saying he would not strike Venezuela when he was on ``60 Minutes,'' on Sunday. When asked if the leader of Venezuela's days were numbered, he also answered: Yes, ``I think so.''
That is what our Commander in Chief said, with the largest warship the U.S. has sailing close to Venezuela. If any other world leader moved this kind of firepower to another country's doorstep, we know what we would believe was taking place.
The bottom line is this: Americans do not want another war. They don't want American servicemembers put into harm's way, either flying missions or with boots on the ground, for a war not authorized by Congress. Mothers and fathers of American sailors, marines, soldiers, and pilots do not want to lie awake at night wondering if their kids will be the ones who have to be deployed to yet another armed conflict, this time in South America.
Last month, we came to this body with a resolution to end the unlawful strikes that this administration had been taking against boats in international waters. We came up a few votes short. But while we remain concerned about those ongoing strikes, this debate is about a different resolution. This resolution is tailor- written to stop one thing: a war with the nation of Venezuela. The Trump administration has not asked Congress to authorize such a war, but the administration appears to be laying the groundwork for one anyway. If they believe a war is necessary, let them come to Congress to make the case for one.
Maduro is a murderous dictator. He is an illegitimate leader in having overturned the last election by the use of military force. He is a bad actor. But I do not believe the American people want to go to war to topple this regime in the hopes that something better might follow.
If the administration feels differently, let them come to the Congress and make the case. Let them come before the American people and make the case. Let them seek an authorization to use force to get rid of Maduro. But let us not abdicate our responsibility. Let us vote to say no to war without our approval. We don't have to wait, nor should we wait for that war to begin before we vote. The War Powers Resolution very clearly and intentionally gives Congress the ability to prevent a President from going to war in the first place. The legislative history of the War Powers Act makes that abundantly clear.
My colleagues might object: Well, these aren't yet hostilities.
Yet people are already dying.
They might object: Well, this is not yet imminent.
Yet with the kind of military force being brought to the region, there is a danger to our sailors, our marines, and our soldiers, as Senator Kaine outlined, because if Venezuela believes we are on the precipice of war, they have the capability to take action against our ships. That clearly meets the definition of ``imminent.''
Our predecessors in Congress designed this law precisely to respond to the very type of military buildup that we see here and act in advance of the U.S. being dragged into another war without Congress's authorization.
We in this body serve our constituents, who have told us for years-- now for decades--no more war, no more use of military force for regime change.
We must reassert our constitutional power, our duty to have the sole decision when American lives could be on the line, when war is on the line.
I share my colleague Senator Kaine's concerns in having read the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel. Regardless of what people view of the merits of that opinion, what we are talking about here is a wholly other matter. What we are talking about here is potential war with Venezuela. What we are talking about here is a massive military and naval buildup in the region, where hostilities may be imminent under circumstances clearly contemplated by Congress when it passed the War Powers Resolution.
I have debated Senator Kaine whether this is our most important power--that is, the power to declare war or to refuse to declare war-- or whether it is the power of the purse. It may indeed be a bit of both in the sense that one way of cutting off a military campaign is by cutting off support for that military campaign.
We have already abdicated our power of the purse in this institution. Should we also abdicate our responsibility to declare war and allow the administration or any administration or any President to usurp that authority? It would be antithetical to what the Founders intended and what they wrote.
As the Founders wrote, the power was given to the legislative branch to declare war because the power to make war was something that an Executive might grow too fond of. So the power was given to Congress, to this legislative body. Let's use that power. Let's reassert our authority. Let's say through this resolution that if the President or the administration wants to go to war for the purpose of regime change or any other purpose, that it must come to Congress and make the case to us and to the American people.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source