Untitled Document

[00:00:00] Senator from South Carolina. [00:00:01] >> Uh thank you very much. It's an [00:00:03] important debate we're having and I'll [00:00:05] give you my view of uh how all this [00:00:07] works. So [clears throat] under the [00:00:10] Constitution, two things occur. [00:00:14] The president of the United States is [00:00:17] designated as the commander-in-chief of [00:00:19] the armed forces, not Congress. [00:00:22] So the commander-in-chief [00:00:24] is one person, [00:00:27] the president. Declaring war as a duty [00:00:31] of the Congress and then in the case of [00:00:35] modern times requires 535 people to [00:00:40] vote. [00:00:42] The question is, [00:00:44] can you use military force as [00:00:46] commander-in-chief [00:00:48] without a declaration of war? The answer [00:00:50] is yes. [00:00:53] There have been five declarations of war [00:00:55] in the history of the country. Uh the [00:00:58] SpanishAmerican War, the MexicanAmerican [00:01:00] War, the War of 1812, World War I, World [00:01:03] War II. Only five times in the history [00:01:07] of our republic has the Congress [00:01:09] exercised its uh responsibility and [00:01:12] right to declare war. Five times. [00:01:17] Now, does that mean that other actions [00:01:20] taken by the commander-in-chief [00:01:22] where there was no declaration of war [00:01:27] don't exist? The answer is no. They do [00:01:30] exist. We've been able to find 130 [00:01:34] examples of a commander-in-chief using [00:01:37] military force without a declaration of [00:01:40] war by the Congress and also without [00:01:42] congressional authorization under the [00:01:45] War Powers Act. [00:01:47] One [clears throat] example is in 1989 [00:01:49] when President Bush 41 literally invaded [00:01:53] the country of Panama sent ground forces [00:01:56] in sustaining casualties to take down [00:01:59] Nora. The the leader of Panama who was a [00:02:03] drug kingpin. Panama was being used as a [00:02:06] drug safe haven. and President Bush 41 [00:02:10] authorized the military without [00:02:12] congressional approval to go in and take [00:02:14] him down, bring him out of uh Panama and [00:02:18] put him in American prison. We used [00:02:20] ground forces and we lost people uh in [00:02:23] that endeavor. [00:02:26] things like this. President Clinton um [00:02:31] used and threatened military force to [00:02:34] take a military coup in Haiti down and [00:02:36] return power back to the elected leader [00:02:39] of Haiti. I can go on and on and on [00:02:42] about how different presidents have used [00:02:45] the military using military force that [00:02:48] in sometimes involve casualties without [00:02:51] congressional approval. So, I don't want [00:02:54] to hear anybody tell me that this has [00:02:58] never been done before. [00:03:01] It's actually the norm. What's odd in [00:03:05] America is to declare war by the [00:03:07] Congress. What the norm is is for the [00:03:10] commander-in-chief to use military force [00:03:12] uh as he or she uh deems necessary to [00:03:15] protect the national interest. The 1973 [00:03:19] War Powers Act is a congressional [00:03:21] statute, [00:03:23] not a constitutional provision that has [00:03:26] a series of reporting requirements when [00:03:28] military force is used. Crescendoing [00:03:31] with a approval process by the Congress [00:03:36] and if that approval is not given the [00:03:38] operations must cease. In my view, it is [00:03:41] patently unconstitutional. [00:03:44] You're creating through the War Powers [00:03:46] Act 535 commander and chiefs. The [00:03:50] members of Congress sit in judgment over [00:03:53] the commander-in-chief and under the War [00:03:56] Powers Act, they have a veto under the [00:03:58] law. I think that violates the [00:04:01] constitutional structure that has been [00:04:03] around since the founding of the [00:04:05] republic. Now, what can Congress do? If [00:04:08] Congress doesn't like a military [00:04:10] operation, the Constitution says that [00:04:13] it's Congress that appropriates money, [00:04:16] not the president. So, for instance, in [00:04:18] Venezuela, if you don't want any [00:04:21] American boots on the ground, I think [00:04:23] you could come forward and pass through [00:04:26] the appropriations process a prohibition [00:04:29] of funds to be used to have American [00:04:33] ground forces in Venezuela. If you don't [00:04:35] like the seizing of the oil for the [00:04:37] mutual benefit of um Venezuela and the [00:04:40] United States, you could say that no [00:04:42] money could be used on behalf of the [00:04:45] American government to seize the oil [00:04:48] and we would win the day because that's [00:04:51] the way you check what you think is a [00:04:54] out of line action by the president when [00:04:56] it comes to using military force. [00:05:00] You can do those two things. What we [00:05:02] can't do is substitute our judgment for [00:05:05] the decision itself. We can't all sit [00:05:08] around up here and say, you know, I [00:05:10] don't know if we should use troops here [00:05:13] or troops there. I don't like the way [00:05:16] this thing is shaping up. That's chaos. [00:05:20] President Trump is well within his legal [00:05:23] rights under article two to use military [00:05:26] force to advance advance a national [00:05:29] interest which is to end the [00:05:33] drug trafficking dictatorship of Maduro [00:05:37] who every Republican and Democrat [00:05:39] condemned. President Trump finally did [00:05:42] something about it, who was flooding our [00:05:44] country with drugs, was a safe haven for [00:05:46] Hezbollah and other uh drug cartels. [00:05:50] Everybody said he should go. Well, [00:05:53] President Trump made those worlds words [00:05:55] real. He used military force in the [00:05:59] advancement of a national security [00:06:00] interest of this country to stop [00:06:03] Venezuela from being a safe haven for [00:06:05] drug dealers and international [00:06:07] terrorists. He has a plan to rebuild the [00:06:11] country and eventually transition [00:06:13] through a an election to a new regime. [00:06:16] Regime change will come to Venezuela [00:06:18] through the ballot box. In the meantime, [00:06:20] he is threatening military force to [00:06:23] people who want to undercut this effort. [00:06:26] He is taking the oil uh and selling it, [00:06:30] creating an account for the benefit of [00:06:32] Venezuela who's basically out of money. [00:06:35] And he's telling those people who are [00:06:37] holdovers from the regime, I want to [00:06:39] work with you to get to where we need to [00:06:41] go, which is rebuild the country, have a [00:06:43] free and fair election, but if you don't [00:06:46] work with me, you try to undercut what [00:06:47] I'm doing, then you can meet the same [00:06:49] fate as Maduro. Maduro was an indicted [00:06:53] uh um [00:06:56] drug guy. He had indictments for being a [00:06:59] drug trafficker. And the argument is [00:07:01] that this operation was to enforce the [00:07:04] warrant that was more of a law [00:07:06] enforcement activity. And because he was [00:07:08] the president of the country, not [00:07:10] legitimate by the way, and everybody [00:07:12] pretty much denied that he was the [00:07:14] legitimate president, he stole the [00:07:16] election. Um, so the bottom line here is [00:07:19] that the theory that some of my [00:07:21] colleagues are hanging their hat on that [00:07:23] this is legitimate because it's actually [00:07:26] a law enforcement function. I respect [00:07:28] what you're saying, but I don't agree. [00:07:31] This is clearly beyond [00:07:33] issuing a warrant. [00:07:36] This is clearly beyond [00:07:38] uh using law enforcement power. [00:07:42] The game plan is not only to take the [00:07:45] indicted leader of the country, who is a [00:07:49] horrible person, and put him in jail, [00:07:51] but to change the country in a way that [00:07:54] doesn't threaten America in the future. [00:07:56] that it will not in the future be a uh [00:07:59] drug haven for cocaine to be dumped in [00:08:02] our country. It will not be a safe haven [00:08:05] for Hezbollah and other drug cartels. [00:08:08] That's the goal. Well, that's going to [00:08:10] take a while. And that's not about the [00:08:13] warrant. That's about our national [00:08:15] security interest. People ask about [00:08:17] America first. What does it mean? Here's [00:08:19] what I think it means. America first [00:08:22] means that we're not going to tolerate [00:08:25] in Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, countries [00:08:29] in our backyard that are run by [00:08:32] international drug cartel leaders who [00:08:36] are not legitimate in terms of being [00:08:38] elected to poison this country, that [00:08:42] we're going to clean up the drug [00:08:43] caliphate in our backyard and we're [00:08:45] going to use a combination of tools to [00:08:47] do that, including military force. So, [00:08:50] there'll probably be another one of [00:08:51] these war resolutions, [00:08:53] war powers act resolution. I want to [00:08:55] tell my colleagues where I'm going to be [00:08:56] on that. If you don't like what you see [00:08:59] coming about threatening force in the [00:09:02] future to have a transition to make [00:09:05] Venezuela free and fair, if you don't [00:09:08] like taking the assets of the country, [00:09:11] selling them to prop up a failing [00:09:13] economy, then limit the president's [00:09:16] ability to do that by denying funding [00:09:19] for those operations. [00:09:21] That would be lawful. The War Powers Act [00:09:25] in my view is unconstitutional because [00:09:28] you're not denying funding. You're [00:09:30] basically vetoing the decision of the [00:09:33] president to enact a national interest. [00:09:35] And the national interest is far beyond [00:09:38] taking Maduro down and putting him in [00:09:41] jail. It is about transforming the [00:09:43] country so we will never live again with [00:09:47] Venezuela threatening America, dumping [00:09:50] cocaine into our country, killing tens [00:09:52] of thousands of people and being a safe [00:09:54] haven for international terrorist group [00:09:57] like Hezbollah. They're aligned with [00:09:59] Russia. So the goal is to make sure that [00:10:01] never happens again. And that will be a [00:10:03] process that involves military force, [00:10:06] potentially diplomatic engagement. [00:10:09] What [clears throat] the Congress, [00:10:11] I fear, is going to do is limit the [00:10:14] president's ability to achieve that [00:10:16] national interest by misapplying the War [00:10:19] Powers Act by substituting our judgment [00:10:22] for his when it comes how to change [00:10:25] Venezuela. The bottom line is if you [00:10:27] don't want troops on the ground, and [00:10:29] right now I don't see a need for them, [00:10:31] if you think that's a bad idea, then [00:10:33] let's pass an appropriations bill that [00:10:36] denies funding for that. If you don't [00:10:38] like taking the oil and putting it, [00:10:40] selling it, and putting the money in an [00:10:42] account to get Venezuela back on its [00:10:44] feet and help pay us for the operations, [00:10:47] then say through the appropriations [00:10:49] process, no money can be spent to do [00:10:51] that. That is within our lane. [00:10:55] the idea that we're going to reject the [00:10:58] plan [00:11:00] of transforming Venezuela [00:11:03] that's that have been drafted by the [00:11:04] commander-in-chief because you don't [00:11:06] agree with it. That means that he's not [00:11:09] the commander-in-chief. We are. So, if a [00:11:13] congressional [00:11:15] enactment can veto the Constitution, [00:11:19] then we're really off script here. A [00:11:22] congressional statute has to give way to [00:11:24] the constitution. The constitution names [00:11:28] the president as the commander-in-chief. [00:11:30] Only the president. [00:11:33] The constitution says that congress and [00:11:35] only congress can declare war. After 250 [00:11:39] years, what have we learned? There have [00:11:42] been five declarations of war. They're [00:11:44] unusual. There have been over 130 [00:11:47] military actions without congressional [00:11:49] authorization using military force to [00:11:52] advance the national interest. That's [00:11:54] the norm. The War Powers Act throws that [00:11:57] into chaos. So, I look forward to future [00:12:01] debates. President Trump has all the [00:12:04] constitutional authority needs to [00:12:06] execute the game plan against Venezuela [00:12:09] to advance our national interest. And [00:12:12] again, if you don't like what he's [00:12:14] doing, there's a constitutional process [00:12:15] available to you, and that's cutting off [00:12:18] funding. And the other process would be [00:12:20] impeachment. If you think he's doing [00:12:22] something unlawful under international [00:12:24] law, you can impeach him. U and those [00:12:26] are your two options. So I will be [00:12:29] voting against this idea and I will be [00:12:31] voting against this idea in a new form [00:12:33] in perpetuity because I think it creates [00:12:37] a constitutional imbalance of where the [00:12:40] Congress over time becomes the [00:12:43] commander-in-chief, [00:12:44] not the president. And we cannot run [00:12:47] this country having 535 [00:12:50] commander-in-chiefs. With that I yield.