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

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying something simple that shouldn't be controversial in the people's House. On questions of war and peace, on questions of life and death, Congress is not supposed to be a potted plant. We don't get paid to outsource hard decisions. We don't get brownie points for showing up.

Our Founders weren't naive about threats, but they were realistic about power. That is why they chose to entrust Congress with the power to make war--not the President, not the courts, not the States--but the elected Representatives of the people.

Call me crazy, but I think if we abdicate that power, we are not only doing a disservice to the people we represent but we are violating our sacred oath of office, our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The last time I brought up this resolution, I was told it was premature because there had been no strikes in Venezuela. Let me quote what my Republicans friends said in their own words.

Chairman Mast said: `` . . . this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela.''

Congressman Keith Self said: `` . . . which is not necessary, as it removes our Armed Forces from hostilities against a country where there have been no hostilities.''

Congressman Warren Davidson said: `` . . . is the contention that this is a present condition, that there are U.S. Forces in violation of the War Powers Resolution, or is it a hypothetical future?''

Congressman Tom McClintock said: ``If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela . . . without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.''

Even Susie Wiles, the President's own Chief of Staff, said that if he were to authorize some activity on land, then we would need Congress.

We got lots of smug lectures from the other side. Guess what. On January 3, 2026, not only did Donald Trump authorize land activity in Venezuela, but his administration did not come to Congress beforehand. We were not even the first group that he talked to after the attack on Venezuela.

I guess the best we can get from the current majority here is that there is never a good time for Congress to assert its war powers. It is either too soon or it is too late.

I don't think it is too late because we are still dealing with the consequences of this unauthorized and unlawful military strike. Nicolas Maduro, a brutal tyrant, was removed from power. The Trump administration replaced Maduro with his own damned vice president. Is that the big victory that my friends think we should be celebrating? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

They left in power the same illegitimate regime that rules through oppression, fraud, and violence. They left in control the same security apparatus that violates people's rights. They preserved the same corrupt cartel state.

Am I missing something here? From what I can tell, the President put our troops in harm's way without congressional consent, all so that he could replace one dictator with another dictator. Everything is the same except the face at the podium.

Now the President says he is the one running Venezuela. I don't even know what the hell that means.

He says we control the oil. What happens if the Venezuelan people don't want that? Will he send troops into Venezuela? What is the clearly defined mission here? I don't know what it is.

Look at what has happened since he claimed he is in charge. Repression has gotten worse. Security forces are interrogating people at checkpoints, confiscating phones, and detaining journalists. Again, I ask: What was this all about? We don't know what will happen next.

Whether you support Trump's actions or oppose them, shouldn't we all agree that we should have a debate on this stuff and that we should authorize an expansion of military forces if that is what is in the future? That should be a debate. We should have a vote on it. That is all we are asking here.

This is crazy. We can't be asleep at the switch. There is no oversight, no hearings, and no votes. It is just blind obedience to the executive. That is not the way this place is supposed to run.

If my colleagues respect this institution, the House of Representatives, they will vote ``yes'' to stop this madness from going any further than it already has. We ought to vote on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the distinguished chairman that his arguments are: It is either too early, or it is too late.

Our troops were on the ground. Our troops were shot at. They were wounded. Thankfully, they are home and they are safe. With this, all we are saying here is that if you are going to expand and utilize the military again, you come to Congress and ask for a vote.

That is not just our prerogative. It is our responsibility. It is in the Constitution. That is our damn job. If you don't want to do it, do something else. Yet it is our responsibility.

In terms of the gentleman's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, I will simply suggest that maybe he and his team go to the Congressional Research Service and get a briefing to understand how it works, but this is our responsibility. It is our job.

Houlahan).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps talking about the resolution, and here it is. I did talk about the resolution, and let's talk about the resolution again. I have it right here. It is two pages.

The way the resolution is written is to comply with the War Powers Act. The resolution would simply prevent further escalation. If you are watching at home, read it yourself, H. Con. Res. 68. The reason we think we need to do that is because the administration already did not get permission before escalating the first time.

By the chairman's logic, the only time we can ever have a vote is if there are physically boots on the ground. That just is logically insane. It doesn't comport with the way the War Powers Act is written. By his logic, the President should be able to launch a preemptive nuclear war without congressional authorization. That is nuts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN.

Mr. Speaker, I have still not gotten an answer to the only question that matters today: Why did we strike Venezuela, spending taxpayer money and putting American troops in harm's way to replace Maduro with his own Vice President, someone who is an illegitimate ruler who is just as ruthless and evil as Maduro?

I don't know why we did that. What was the point? Not a single one of my colleagues can answer that question because they have no answer. They know voting for this resolution is right.

If people want to put our troops in harm's way, if they genuinely believe more military action may be necessary in the future, if that is what you believe, whether to defend oil fields or to do something else, then you shouldn't just pound the damn lectern and wave the flag. You need to come before this entire Chamber to move a bill to authorize the use of military force.

My friends should have the guts and backbone to put an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the floor. Spell out the mission. Spell out the objectives. Tell the American people how long it lasts, what it costs, why it matters, and how we get a legitimate, democratic government in Venezuela. Have the guts to vote. That is all this resolution is requiring, but don't give me this bs about how before the strikes it was premature to vote, and now it is too late.

I have seen this movie before, Mr. Speaker. It always starts with the White House telling us that it will be quick, clean, and over in a matter of days. Then, months later, years later, you get troops deployed, kids coming home in caskets, and taxpayers paying for endless quagmires that never end, and the same people here on the floor telling us that we are premature or crying wolf are suddenly nowhere to be found.

That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Wars are easy to start, but they are hard as hell to stop.

This resolution ought to pass no matter what you believe about further military involvement in Venezuela. What it says plainly is that if the President is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and a constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval.

The people we represent did not send us here to be potted plants while the White House sleepwalks us into another mess. If this administration wants to escalate, make the case to the American people. Get consent through their elected Representatives. Follow the Constitution.

Let me tell you what I think. I think this was all so that Donald Trump could get a good headline. I think it was so he could distract from the lousy economy and the fact that he is still covering up the Epstein files. I think it is about theft because the oil being taken from the people of Venezuela is being sold off and used to finance a slush fund in Qatar controlled by, you guessed it, Donald Trump.

I don't think I have ever seen such a brazen example of corruption in my life. The President of the United States put American troops in harm's way so he could steal oil from Venezuela and deposit it into his own pocket. I think it is a disgraceful thing to do.

It is time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grow a spine, obey their oath, and do their damn jobs. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution, whether you support President Trump's actions or you disagree with them.

All this says is simply that if he wants to expand military operations, he has to come to Congress. It is that simple. It is not complicated. This is about the Constitution. This is about our oath. This is about representing the people who sent us here. I mean, to do anything less is a dereliction of our duty.

I can't even believe that this is controversial, the idea that somehow we don't want to vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, whether it is in Venezuela or anywhere else.

What is wrong with my colleagues who think this is such a big leap that this is somehow not justified? Read the Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source