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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this War Powers Resolution because the integrity of this institution is in question.

Every Member of this House has a duty to uphold the Constitution's system of checks and balances by exercising its Article I powers entrusted to us.

The executive's military exercise to capture the leader of Venezuela represents one of the most blatant usurpations of congressional authority we have seen in modern times. If we ignore it, then we are not merely acquiescing to executive overreach, we are rendering impotent our branch of government.

Thomas Paine said in 1776: ``A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.''

Some of my Republican colleagues may feel obligated to acquiesce because it is our party occupying the White House. It is our party who is the Commander in Chief, but the precedents we tolerate today will inevitably be used against us tomorrow when the reins of power change hands. That is precisely why our loyalty must be to the Constitution and not to any party.

If our country wants war, then Congress must vote on it. We are the voice of the people. There is a reason so many of our offices bear a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Flag. It is a solemn reminder of the human cost of war and our obligation, not the obligation of a single executive or a private circle of special interests, to decide when to go to war.

Even the executive branch knows that Congress had the authority, not them.

Do you remember the night of the invasion, Mr. Speaker?

It was the Attorney General who explained this was just a law enforcement action that the military was merely assisting.

That is the problem we have because then it became obvious that we were undertaking a military exercise. If the unilateral use of force was not enough, then the executive has compounded this abuse by seizing Venezuela's oil revenues, selling them, and depositing that money in U.S. Treasury-controlled accounts overseas.

So now the executive presumes the authority to appropriate money. That is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution is unambiguous: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law . . . ''

There was no law, and there has been no law to appropriate this money that was seized in an act of war.

If we allow an executive to seize foreign resources and direct spending from pillaged accounts without congressional authorization, then people no longer have a voice in their government, and Congress' power of the purse becomes moot.

If the executive believes war is justified, then let Congress declare it. If the executive believes foreign assets may be seized, spent, and appropriated, then let Congress appropriate them. That is how a Republic functions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source