Untitled Document

[00:00:02] Senator from South Carolina is [00:00:03] recognized. [00:00:04] >> Call. [00:00:05] >> We're not. [00:00:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh well, I will uh be [00:00:08] speaking here for a few minutes about [00:00:10] the upcoming uh War Powers Resolution [00:00:13] vote. Uh first, I'd like to introduce [00:00:16] into the record the Wall Street Journal [00:00:19] uh editorial about the War Powers Act, [00:00:22] if I may. Thank you. Uh so, I've been [00:00:26] asked a lot about this in a prior life. [00:00:29] Uh I used to be a judge advocate in the [00:00:31] Air Force uh for about 33 years a [00:00:35] prosecutor, defense attorney and and a [00:00:37] military judge for a very short period [00:00:39] of time and I enjoyed it very much. So [00:00:41] this part of the law has been uh part of [00:00:45] my life and um the body is going to make [00:00:48] a big vote today and I think it is a [00:00:50] consequential vote and simply put here's [00:00:54] my understanding of the constitution and [00:00:58] how [00:01:00] Congress and the president and the [00:01:02] courts interact when it comes to making [00:01:05] war. No president has the ability to put [00:01:09] America in a state of war. Uh that is [00:01:13] reserved to the Congress. [00:01:15] It says in the constitution only [00:01:17] Congress can declare war. When you look [00:01:20] at the history of the country, we've [00:01:23] declared war, Congress says five times [00:01:27] in the last 250 years. [00:01:31] So declaring war is an unusual thing by [00:01:35] the Congress. The War of 1812, the [00:01:38] MexicanAmerican War, the SpanishAmerican [00:01:41] War, World War I, and World War II. [00:01:44] [clears throat] So I would suggest that [00:01:47] declaring war is something America [00:01:50] doesn't do a lot, and that's probably [00:01:52] good reason. When you declare war, it [00:01:55] affects insurance contracts. It's a [00:01:58] legal state that that has a lot of [00:02:00] consequence to it. So, we've done that [00:02:02] five times as a nation. Wonder how many [00:02:06] times a commander-in-chief has used [00:02:09] military force to defend the nation [00:02:12] without a declaration of war. Hundreds, [00:02:15] if not thousands of times in the last [00:02:18] 250 years. So the norm in this country [00:02:22] is that military conflicts are not um [00:02:27] carried on under a declaration of war. [00:02:30] Military conflicts which they've been a [00:02:33] lot of Korea, Vietnam, on and on and on [00:02:36] uh are engaged in by a [00:02:39] commander-in-chief who feels a need to [00:02:42] use military force depending on what the [00:02:44] threat is. [00:02:46] >> [clears throat] [00:02:46] >> The question before the body is, can the [00:02:50] Congress [00:02:52] um stop a military conflict [00:02:56] declared by the commander-in-chief [00:02:58] because we don't agree with their [00:03:01] decision and without our approval, it [00:03:04] must end. And the answer unequivocally [00:03:07] to me is no. Under the Constitution, the [00:03:11] authority to be commander-in-chief [00:03:13] resides exclusively with the president. [00:03:16] The power to declare war is exclusive to [00:03:19] the Congress. Now, what could the [00:03:22] Congress do constitutionally if they [00:03:24] disagree with a military action that's [00:03:27] not a declaration of war? We could cut [00:03:29] off funding. The Constitution [00:03:33] reserves the right of the Congress, [00:03:34] beginning in the House, to appropriate [00:03:37] money. So if there's a military [00:03:39] engagement out there, you just pick the [00:03:41] topic and as a member of Congress, you [00:03:44] think America should not be in this [00:03:46] conflict constitutionally, you could [00:03:49] terminate funding and that [00:03:51] [clears throat] would be a [00:03:52] constitutional check and balance on the [00:03:54] president's ability to use military [00:03:56] force. The second thing you could do as [00:03:59] a member of Congress, if you thought the [00:04:01] president was doing something wrong by [00:04:04] using the military, is you could do an [00:04:06] article of impeachment. [00:04:08] somehow create a high crime or [00:04:09] misdemeanor that the use of force in [00:04:11] this circumstance is a high crime and [00:04:14] dis misdemeanor and impeach the [00:04:16] president. Those are two things that [00:04:18] Congress can do to check and balance a [00:04:21] president. The one thing we can't do in [00:04:25] my opinion is to substitute our judgment [00:04:28] for that of the commander-in-chief about [00:04:30] a military operation. Because if that's [00:04:33] the case, then you don't have a single [00:04:35] commander-in-chief. You have 535 [00:04:38] commander-in-chiefs. [00:04:40] There's never been in the history of the [00:04:42] country a termination of military [00:04:44] activity based on the idea Congress did [00:04:47] not approve it. There have been a lot of [00:04:49] military operations authorized by [00:04:51] Congress. There have been a lot of [00:04:53] military operations not authorized by [00:04:55] Congress. The question of the War Powers [00:04:58] Act is what we're talking about. In [00:05:01] 1973, [00:05:03] the [clears throat] frustration with the [00:05:04] Vietnam War, [00:05:06] Congress passed a statute that required [00:05:09] the commander-in-chief to notify [00:05:12] Congress about engaging in hostilities [00:05:17] within a specific period of time to make [00:05:20] reports to Congress at the end of a [00:05:23] defined period. I think it's 60 days, I [00:05:25] can't remember. If Congress hasn't [00:05:27] approved those hostilities, [00:05:30] then they must be terminated. I think [00:05:32] the War Powers Act is a obvious [00:05:35] constitutional infringement on the [00:05:38] ability of the commander-in-chief to [00:05:39] conduct military operations because the [00:05:42] War Powers Act at its heart takes away [00:05:45] the ability of the commander-in-chief to [00:05:47] decide military matters and it resides [00:05:50] with us. If you can terminate a [00:05:54] commander-in-chief's decision [00:05:56] [clears throat] [00:05:57] through the War Powers Act, then that [00:06:00] constitutional authority has been taken [00:06:02] by us, the Congress, and that would be a [00:06:04] disaster for this country. [00:06:07] So, I would argue that the War Powers [00:06:09] Act is on its face unconstitutional. [00:06:14] Reagan and a bunch of other presidents [00:06:16] have said the same thing. [00:06:18] The day that we terminate a military [00:06:21] operation [00:06:22] based on the idea that we haven't [00:06:25] authorized it, then we become [00:06:27] commander-in-chief. We the Congress. [00:06:30] That power has been taken from the [00:06:33] designated commander-in-chief and absurd [00:06:35] by us. That would be a disaster for our [00:06:38] country. It would create [00:06:42] um paralysis at a time of need. Now, [00:06:46] presidents have informed us of military [00:06:50] actions under the War Powers Act, [00:06:52] arguing the act is unconstitutional. I [00:06:55] would continue to do that if I were a [00:06:58] commander-in-chief. I would inform the [00:07:00] Congress. I would brief the Congress [00:07:02] about what I'm going to do or not do [00:07:05] using our military. Just I think is good [00:07:08] public policy. But the vote we're going [00:07:12] to take this afternoon is basically [00:07:15] we're going to vote as the United States [00:07:18] Senate to terminate actions taken by [00:07:22] President Trump regarding drug cartels. [00:07:26] And I think the day we do that, then [00:07:29] we're saying to the world that really [00:07:31] the commanderin-chief is the Congress, [00:07:34] not the president. And if you don't like [00:07:37] what President Trump's doing with drug [00:07:38] votes and other activity in the [00:07:41] Caribbean or anywhere else, you could [00:07:43] pass a law saying no funds can be used [00:07:46] for the purposes of these operations. [00:07:48] And I've been told by my colleagues, [00:07:50] well, that's hard. Well, it's meant to [00:07:51] be hard. The president can veto any law [00:07:55] we pass, and the only way we can [00:07:57] override that veto is to get twothirds [00:08:01] of the body. It's meant to be hard. It [00:08:04] requires us to find consensus. So to my [00:08:08] colleagues, please do not be confused [00:08:10] about this. Never in the history of our [00:08:13] country has a Congress terminated a [00:08:16] military action because they did not [00:08:18] give permission to the [00:08:20] commander-in-chief. Never in the history [00:08:21] of the country the Supreme Court ruled [00:08:24] that the Congress has the power to [00:08:26] terminate hostilities [00:08:28] simply because they disagree with the [00:08:30] president. Because today that becomes [00:08:32] the norm. then you've taken the power of [00:08:34] the commander-in-chief away from the [00:08:36] president. You conferred it upon us. [00:08:40] [clears throat] So this is a big vote. [00:08:42] This is a consequential vote. And what [00:08:45] I'm saying I think makes imminent sense. [00:08:48] By making the commander-in-chief [00:08:51] a single person, the president [00:08:56] sitting at top the military, you create [00:08:59] a structure and order. [00:09:01] If to get military action up and running [00:09:05] and sustained, you had to have a vote of [00:09:08] 535 people, it would be chaos. [00:09:12] If you don't like what the president's [00:09:14] doing, [00:09:16] then again, the remedy is to use your [00:09:18] constitutional tools as a member of [00:09:21] Congress, which is funding, not [00:09:24] replacing your judgment for that of the [00:09:26] commander-in-chief. I've said that about [00:09:30] Obama, Clinton, everybody. That's just [00:09:35] my view. [clears throat] In 1989, [00:09:38] President Bush, 41, [00:09:41] used military force to take down Emanuel [00:09:44] Nora, the leader of Panama, and [00:09:47] [clears throat] he was indicted and put [00:09:49] in American prison for being a drug [00:09:51] lord, a drug drug kingpin. [00:09:55] That was done without authorization of [00:09:57] Congress. [00:09:59] I think President Bush 41 was right to [00:10:01] take Nora down. We can't tolerate nation [00:10:05] states in our backyard becoming narotist [00:10:09] centers. And that takes us to Venezuela. [00:10:13] The President Trump has decided that [00:10:16] these drug boats [00:10:18] [clears throat] being operated by narot [00:10:20] terrorist emanating from Venezuela are a [00:10:24] national security threat to our nation. [00:10:27] I think he's right in his assessment. [00:10:30] All of these votes coming to our shores, [00:10:32] headed for our shores, have drugs, and [00:10:36] drugs are killing more Americans than [00:10:38] any terrorist group out there. Fentanyl [00:10:41] comes from China through Mexico, but [00:10:44] cocaine production was up 85% over the [00:10:46] last four years, and cocaine has [00:10:48] destroyed a lot of lives in our country. [00:10:51] So, these drug boats are being [00:10:54] interdicted by the military because [00:10:56] President Trump believes that [00:10:57] naroterrorism [00:10:59] is a national security threat to our [00:11:01] country and he is using the military in [00:11:04] that endeavor, not law enforcement. I [00:11:07] think he's right. Some people say, "Have [00:11:09] the Coast Guard stop the boat." Well, [00:11:11] the Coast Guard is military and is [00:11:13] civilian. [00:11:14] I like the idea that our [00:11:16] commander-in-chief is telling nar [00:11:19] narotist organizations, you're not only [00:11:21] a foreign terrorist organization, but [00:11:24] when you engage in threats to our [00:11:26] country, a boat headed to America full [00:11:29] of drugs, we're going to take you out. [00:11:32] That's going to stop the flow of drugs. [00:11:34] We've secured the border, but we now [00:11:37] need to go to the networks that produce [00:11:39] the products and distribute the products [00:11:41] that eventually come to our shores and [00:11:43] kill Americans. As to Venezuela, I would [00:11:46] argue it's a naroterrorist state. It is [00:11:49] not a sovereign country in the sense of [00:11:51] international law. That the leader of [00:11:54] Venezuela, Maduro, is an indicted drug [00:11:57] dealer with a $50 million bounty uh from [00:12:00] the United States. that the recent [00:12:03] election uh was stolen by Maduro. He's [00:12:07] not a legitimate president under the [00:12:09] laws of Venezuela and he's not [00:12:11] recognized as being legitimate by a [00:12:14] multitude of international bodies. So I [00:12:17] would say that Venezuela in the hands of [00:12:20] Maduro is a existential threat to the [00:12:24] people of the United States. [00:12:26] that is a naroterrorist state run by a [00:12:29] drug king kingpin that's used as a base [00:12:32] of operations to send deadly drugs into [00:12:34] our country and it needs to stop and [00:12:37] whatever power that President Trump [00:12:39] would like to use to stop that I think [00:12:41] he has the authority under the [00:12:43] constitution and if we don't like it as [00:12:45] Congress we can defund the military [00:12:48] operations we can't replace our judgment [00:12:51] for his finally Madura and Hezbollah [00:12:55] have a long connection. [00:12:57] Uh the president of the pro presiding [00:13:00] officer of the Senate is a great uh [00:13:03] senator who understands national [00:13:04] security as ambassador to Japan been a [00:13:07] great addition to this body. [00:13:09] [clears throat] Hezbollah connections to [00:13:11] Venezuela go way back. Hezbollah is a [00:13:14] Middle East terrorist organization [00:13:16] Shiite connected to Iran that has a lot [00:13:20] of American blood on its hands. 241 [00:13:22] Marines killed at the end of a runway in [00:13:24] Beirut in the 80s by Hezbollah. [00:13:27] They're running out of money because [00:13:28] President Trump has really isolated [00:13:30] Iran, their benefactor. So now they're [00:13:33] upping their game by associating with [00:13:36] Madura. [00:13:37] Madura now has a business relationship [00:13:40] with Hezblah at a level we haven't seen [00:13:43] before. [00:13:45] Funding this terrorist organization from [00:13:47] narot terrorist activity in Venezuela [00:13:51] threatens America's interests in the [00:13:53] Middle East. This is not a hypothetical [00:13:56] connection. It is a real connection. So [00:13:59] I am hoping that the body will [00:14:01] understand that what President Trump is [00:14:04] doing is not only lawful but necessary. [00:14:08] We have a drug caliphate in our [00:14:09] backyard. We have Mexico, we have [00:14:13] Colombia, we have Venezuela, and we have [00:14:15] Cuba. These are all nations, some of [00:14:18] them allied with us, that have enormous [00:14:21] drug problems, and they've lost their [00:14:23] sovereignty in Mexico over parts of the [00:14:25] country. But I'm focused on Venezuela. [00:14:28] Venezuela truly is not a legitimate [00:14:31] government under Madura. He stole the [00:14:34] election. He's an indicted drug dealer. [00:14:37] It is not legitimate. It is a threat to [00:14:39] the United States. So, I'm glad to see [00:14:42] that President Trump has put narotist [00:14:45] drug organizations and and countries [00:14:48] that support them on notice that we will [00:14:51] fight back to protect our people. And [00:14:54] [clears throat] as these drug boats flow [00:14:56] toward us, I think President Trump sees [00:14:59] it as a killing machine. [00:15:02] If a drug if a boat full of al-Qaeda [00:15:05] guys were coming to the United States, [00:15:07] what's the right answer? Blow them up [00:15:09] before they get here. If you got a drug [00:15:12] boat full of drugs run by narot [00:15:14] terrorist associated with Middle East [00:15:16] terrorists, blow them up before they get [00:15:18] here. But we got to do more than blow up [00:15:20] the boat. We got to go to the problem on [00:15:24] the land. Who loads the boats? Who makes [00:15:27] the money off the boats? So, I don't [00:15:29] know where this is going in Venezuela, [00:15:31] but I know this. President Trump has [00:15:33] said that Maduro's days are numbered. [00:15:35] They should be. What I like a lot about [00:15:38] President Trump, he's a man of peace [00:15:40] until he's not. [00:15:43] He is seeking peace all over the planet. [00:15:46] He stopped eight conflicts. He will be [00:15:48] the first one to tell you that. I like [00:15:50] the idea of a president wanting to make [00:15:52] peace, not war. But he's a man not to be [00:15:54] trifled with. I think he has decided [00:15:57] early on that naroterrorism emanating [00:16:00] from our backyard [00:16:02] is not going to be tolerated any longer. [00:16:04] There's a new game in town. You do this [00:16:08] at your own risk. And I just want to let [00:16:10] him know and the country know, not only [00:16:13] do I think he has the legal authority, I [00:16:15] think he's doing the right thing. You're [00:16:17] saving a lot of lives by stopping this [00:16:19] boat traffic from getting to our shores. [00:16:22] And if you need to take down the [00:16:24] organization that funds the boats and [00:16:27] supplies the votes that's a direct [00:16:29] threat to the United States associated [00:16:30] with M East terrorist organizations, uh [00:16:34] tell us what you're up to, but do what [00:16:36] you have to to protect America. So at [00:16:38] 5:00, we're going to take a very [00:16:40] consequential vote. And I would urge my [00:16:42] colleagues, whether you like President [00:16:44] Trump or not, whether you agree with him [00:16:46] about politics, this is bigger than you [00:16:48] and it's bigger than him. [00:16:50] I did the same thing for Obama. When he [00:16:54] went into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, I [00:16:56] didn't think for one minute Congress had [00:16:59] to authorize that action. He was taking [00:17:01] out a mastermind of terrorism that made [00:17:04] us safer. It was in a sovereign country [00:17:06] called Pakistan that was no longer [00:17:08] reliable when it come when it came to [00:17:10] policing uh bin Laden. I supported that [00:17:13] operation because he had the legal [00:17:15] authority and was the right thing to do. [00:17:18] I supported President Bush 41. I [00:17:21] supported Reagan when he went into [00:17:22] Grenada to take down building Cuban [00:17:25] influence where Cubans were beginning to [00:17:28] have a footprint in Grenada that was [00:17:30] adver adverse to our national security [00:17:32] interest when Cuba was aligned with [00:17:34] Russia and other bad actors. So we've [00:17:37] had a policy of policing our backyard. [00:17:40] But this vote, Senator Kaine is a good [00:17:42] friend. We just see things different. [00:17:45] He's saying in America there is really [00:17:48] not a single commander-in-chief. He's [00:17:51] saying in America you can't conduct [00:17:53] hostile actions unless the Congress as a [00:17:56] body uh approves it. What he's saying is [00:18:01] what the Constitution rejects. [00:18:04] If they wanted us as the framers of the [00:18:07] Constitution to give approval to [00:18:10] continue hostilities, they would have [00:18:11] done so. They reside in us the power to [00:18:14] declare war and that's the power [00:18:16] reserved us. But that doesn't mean the [00:18:19] president can't use military force when [00:18:21] necessary to protect a nation without a [00:18:24] declaration of war. And the reason I [00:18:26] know that's true, we've only declared [00:18:28] war five times in 250 years. And we've [00:18:31] had hundreds of military operations, [00:18:34] some authorized, some not. So to my [00:18:36] colleagues today, please understand this [00:18:39] constitutional check and balance [00:18:42] has served our well our country well for [00:18:44] 250 years. We live in polarized times. [00:18:48] Don't let your emotions drive you into [00:18:51] doing something that would weaken our [00:18:53] nation. [00:18:55] I can't think of anything more critical [00:18:57] to weakening our nation than to have [00:19:01] Congress be the commander-in-chief. [00:19:04] us. 535 people have a hard time deciding [00:19:08] when to go to lunch. [00:19:10] So, I'm hoping [00:19:13] that this resolution, well intended, [00:19:16] will be voted down, not because I like [00:19:19] President Trump, because I believe the [00:19:21] constitutional structure that was [00:19:24] created a long time ago has served us [00:19:26] well as a nation. And if we vote to [00:19:29] change that structure, we will doing [00:19:31] great damage to our nation and our [00:19:33] national security. So I would urge a no [00:19:35] vote this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. [00:19:38] President. Uh, I yield.