Removal of the Use of United States Forces for Hostilities Within or Against Venezuela

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, the Constitution is crystal clear that only Congress can start a war. However, in their deliberations on this subject, the Founders also made clear that they were leaving the President certain limited inherent power to react to an attack. For example, he can order up defensive measures or hot pursuit of an enemy or retaliatory strikes. That is the distinction they debated when they substituted ``declare war'' instead of ``make war'' among Congress' enumerated powers.

The supporters of this resolution are correct. Congress has to initiate hostilities, but neither of these resolutions are applicable to current events. H. Con. Res. 64 orders the President to remove forces from Venezuela that are not in Venezuela. Until and unless they are, this is at best an empty partisan exercise. Worse, it could be construed to constrain his inherent powers in the event of an attack by Venezuela that requires an immediate response.

H. Con. Res. 61 orders him to cease attacks on terrorist groups, presumably the drug runners, but these are unflagged vessels carrying contraband in international waters. An attack on them is not an attack on a foreign power and, therefore, not an act of war. It is akin to firing on Somali pirates menacing international shipping.

If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela or Venezuelan-flagged vessels without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think the Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source