Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President and my colleagues, last week, the Senate agreed to discharge our bipartisan War Powers Resolution from the Foreign Relations Committee so that we could finally, after months, debate military action against Venezuela and Venezuelans, on the floor of the Senate, and not just allow the administration to wage combat on its own with no information shared except in classified settings.

I thank my colleagues, two of whom are here on the floor today, who voted for this resolution. They did not vote to rebuke a President, although, for some reason, he has chosen to see it that way. Instead, they voted to uphold a basic constitutional principle that we should not be waging offensive hostilities without a debate and vote in Congress.

As I described last week, the reason for that principle is clear: Don't send our sons and daughters into military hostilities without the debate and vote in Congress that would put the thumbprint of the Nation's leadership on the validity of the mission.

I believed that today we were going to have a debate about the War Powers Resolution, possibly consider amendments to it, and then hold a vote on final passage. But I have now learned that some want to foreclose the possibility of a debate and allow the President to carry out this unauthorized campaign with no public debate and no vote. And they are apparently preparing a parliamentary move to deprive our resolution of the privileged status given it under the War Powers Resolution and, thus, shut debate down.

First, an effort to declare this resolution not privileged-- apparently, by arguing that the campaign in and against Venezuelans is not hostilities--is something that the House has actually been doing, but the Senate should not emulate.

Some of you remember that the Senate has passed a number of resolutions against President Trump's unilateral tariff taxes that are privileged. They are also privileged--or they used to be--in the House, but the House was so afraid to even have a debate or vote about this matter that they used a procedural parliamentary trick to turn off the privilege. I don't think that is worthy of emulation by the ``greatest deliberative body'' in the world. We shouldn't be afraid to debate or discuss anything, especially matters of war and peace.

Second, an argument that the Venezuelan campaign is not ``imminent hostilities'' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution is a violation of every reasonable meaning of that term.

Let's begin with the boat campaign against boats with Venezuelans on it, starting in mid-September, that has now killed more than a hundred designated combatants; the amassing of U.S. military assets, what the President calls an armada in and around Venezuela; the President' authorization of covert action in Venezuela; the U.S. military's use in the interdiction of oil from Venezuela; the attack, over two weekends ago, to seize the Venezuelan President, President Maduro, and his wife, where more than a hundred combatants were killed, where U.S. troops were injured; and now ongoing control facilitated by the U.S. military.

The United States is determining who can govern Venezuela. We have tapped the Vice President of Venezuela and determined that she is somebody who should be the leader, rather than the opposition who won an overwhelming election, just a year ago.

We have said we can determine when Venezuela will finally be entitled to have its own election, saying that they are not going to be ready for that for some long period of time.

We are seizing the nation's primary economic asset, its oil. We are deciding how the oil revenues--every penny of the oil revenues--of this nation should be spent, and President Trump is even saying that he gets to determine which U.S. companies can even invest in the Venezuelan oil economy.

And it is all being done with the active participation of the U.S. military. The U.S. military assets in place around Venezuela are, as President Trump said, an armada, 16,000 U.S. personnel. This is open source reporting as of 2 days ago, arrayed around Venezuela:

The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group: Carrier Air Wing 9, the USS Winston Churchill, the USS Bainbridge, and the USS Mahan.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Readiness Group, which includes: the USS Fort Lauderdale, the USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), the USS Stockdale (DDG-106), the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), the USS Gettysburg (CG-64), the USS Wichita (LCS- 13), the USNS Waters, the USNS Joshua Humphreys, and the USNS Kanawha.

And that is in addition to air assets that are arrayed all around the region that have been used and are likely to be used in the future.

Everything that is being done to control Venezuela, its politics, and its economy are being facilitated by the U.S. military, but it is more than assets in place. Operation Southern Spear, the boat strikes of Venezuelan boats in international waters, is still being carried out by the U.S. military. The U.S. military is engaged in a naval blockade of Venezuela, transit out and transit in. Would we think that was an act of war if Russia was blockading the United States and not allowing commerce to come into or out of our ports?

The U.S. military is engaged in active interdiction of Venezuelan oil in the Pacific and the Caribbean and elsewhere in the world, and the United States is threatening future military action.

President Trump said about Vice President Rodriguez, if she didn't act well, she would have a fate worse than President Maduro. President Trump was going to do a second invasion, last Friday, that he called off after our vote Thursday afternoon--threats of future invasion.

If this is not ``imminent hostilities'' with the death now of more than 200 combatants, with U.S. troops injured, with an armada arrayed around, a naval interdiction of oil, and a blockade of this country's economy, it would violate every reasonable meaning of this term, and to pretend otherwise would weaken the respect that this institution should aspire to.

Finally, to my colleagues, there has been some recent correspondence between the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch of Idaho, and the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, that basically underlines my points.

Some Senate colleagues wanted to use this procedural maneuver today, and they felt that it would help if they could have a clear definition or description from the administration that the military operation is over.

And so, I have the letter here that Senator Risch wrote to the President of the United States yesterday, and he asked two simple questions: First, ``provide Congress with an official correspondence confirming that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended''--first request-- and second, specify ``that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.''

Two simple questions. I don't know that those questions would have been sufficient for me, but, apparently, Senator Risch thought if he could get ``yes'' answers to both of those questions, it would be sufficient for him.

Secretary Rubio sent a response today and would not answer yes to either of the questions. The letter from Senator Secretary, dated earlier today, January 14, very explicitly does not say that Operation Absolute Resolve is over. He was asked to say that it ended; he would not say that it has ended.

How could it be ended when the President is still threatening other sanctioned and indicted Venezuelan officials with a fate worse than Maduro's if they don't meet the U.S. standards?

So in this letter which my colleagues sought to justify this parliamentary maneuver that is coming up, Secretary Rubio would not specify that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended.

Well, how about the second question: Please specify ``that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.''

Secretary Rubio would not say that either. ``There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.'' He didn't say U.S. forces aren't involved in hostilities in or against Venezuelans because he couldn't say that with the interdiction, with the blockade, with the boat strikes.

And so even the effort of my colleagues to try to find a parliamentary escape hatch--oh, there is no hostilities--and softball set of two questions to the Secretary of State to justify their position produced a response where he would not agree that the operation is over--the military operation--and he would not agree that the United States is now not in hostilities in or against Venezuela.

This is the third vote we have had on Venezuela in the last 3 months. Only now--only now--does the administration and its supporters make the claim that there are no hostilities. They didn't make that claim in the first 2 months, as the armada was amassing, as we were killing people in open waters, as we were committing to covert action, as we were preparing and practicing for an invasion.

They knew that it was hostilities, and that is why they didn't challenge it. But only now, on the third vote, are they challenging whether this is or is not hostilities, and they are doing so to avoid public debate. That is the reason they are doing this.

If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous and so lawful, the administration and its supporters would not be so afraid to have this debate before the public and the U.S. Senate.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to avoid a parliamentary gag rule on discussion of this military operation and support the bipartisan War Powers Resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in a moment, I will make the motion that my colleague from Idaho mentioned, the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 298, but I do want to just address the points that he made very briefly.

My colleague from Idaho had said there is no current use of U.S. hostilities in Venezuela, and he has also said that the military operation Absolute Resolve is over. That is what he has just told this body. And he has said, because of those two facts, he is making the motion that we will hear in a moment, the inquiry.

I just want to refer my colleagues to the letter exchange between Senator Risch and Secretary Rubio because that is not what the letters say. The letters do not say what has been represented by my colleague.

Let me read what Senator Risch asked the President, and then let me read Senator Rubio's response.

Senator Risch said: I respectfully request that you provide Congress with an official correspondence confirming that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended and that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.

Those were the two questions posed to the President.

Let me read you Senator Rubio's answer. He did not confirm in his answer that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended. The letter does not mention Operation Absolute Resolve because it hasn't ended. The President himself has said that he is holding out the possibility of doing the exact same thing that he did to President Maduro to other Venezuelan officials who have been indicted by the United States, and that is why Secretary Rubio, in the letter, could not give an affirmative answer to Senator Risch's question. Operation Absolute Resolve has not ended.

There was a second question Senator Risch asked: Confirm that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.

Secretary Rubio wouldn't confirm that either. All Secretary Rubio says is: There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.

What about the boat strikes? What about the naval blockade? What about the naval seizure of Venezuelan oil? Those are all hostilities under domestic and international law. They are all hostilities. And that is why Secretary Rubio, I think, being intellectually honest, refused to give an affirmative answer to my colleague's question. He said there are no troops currently in Venezuela, but he would not say that the U.S. military is not involved in hostilities.

So even on this record, with my colleague posing two questions to the administration--tell us the operation is over; tell us the United States is not involved in hostilities--the administration would do neither. And for that reason, I ask that we proceed on the path we are on to have this debate finally before the American public.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source