NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to disarm our troops as they face a growing campaign of Iranian aggression in the Middle East. Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to empower the Ayatollahs as they continue to rampage across the Middle East, attacking U.S. aircraft, attacking ships in the high seas, threatening our troops in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar, and elsewhere. That is because we will be voting tomorrow morning on an amendment that says, very simply: ``No funds may be used to conduct hostilities against the Government of Iran, against the Armed Forces of Iran, or in the territory of Iran, except pursuant to an Act or a joint resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such hostilities.''

That amendment is simple--I would say simple-minded--but it is simply an act of appeasement against the Ayatollahs who are currently conducting attacks against the United States and our interests on a regular and growing basis.

Let's just take a case in point. The earlier version of this amendment included no exception--no exception whatsoever--for our troops to defend themselves against an attack by Iran. You might say that is a careless omission. I would, however, say that even the fact that it was changed after I pointed out that omission just goes to show you that the root of this amendment is Trump derangement syndrome.

It does have an exception now. Let's look at that: ``Nothing can be construed to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend''--to defend--``against an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.''

What does that mean? What does it mean to defend against an attack? I don't know. I am not sure. If an F-15 pilot is shot upon in international airspace, I guess he can deploy countermeasures--chaff-- to disrupt the missile. Can he shoot back? Can he shoot back at the Iranian missile battery that shot at him?

Let's say our troops who are garrisoned in places like Iraq and Syria have incoming mortar fire by an Iranian proxy militia. I guess they can duck and cover in a concrete bunker. I guess that is defense. Can they use counterbattery fire to shoot back at that mortar firing position? I don't know. I don't know. Can they? Beats me.

We have thousands of troops stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, the main airbase from which we conducted operations against the Islamic State. Let's say they have a missile coming in. I guess they can use a patriot missile defense system to shoot that missile down. Can they fire back at the missile battery that shot that missile, which has many more to fire? I don't know. Can they? It seems like offense to me. Maybe it is defense.

Let's take a page from history. In 1988, Ronald Reagan authorized one of the largest naval engagements since World War II in response to the exact kinds of attacks against commercial shipping and the U.S. Navy on the high seas that we have seen from Iran in the last 2 weeks. However, that operation didn't commence for 4 days; it was 4 days after a U.S. Navy frigate hit one of the Iranian mines before we struck back. Is that in defense against an Iranian attack? It doesn't seem that it would be, to me. I don't know.

What we are debating here is how many lawyers can dance on a head of a pin when our soldiers are in harm's way. They need to know that when they are shot upon, they can fire back, and they can eliminate that threat without any politician in Washington or any lawyer at the Department of Defense looking over their shoulders and second-guessing them. That is not what they get from this amendment, though.

Consider also the consequences. Many of the speakers today will say this is about deescalating tension in the Middle East--deescalating. Who is escalating it? Who is the one firing on American aircraft? Not Donald Trump. Who is interfering with the freedom of navigation on the high seas? It is not Donald Trump; it is the Ayatollahs. They are the ones who have manufactured this crisis because they know that the United States is on the strategic offensive and that we have the initiative against Iran for the first time in 40 years.

This amendment, though, would only embolden them to continue the campaign of the last 2 months of gradually marching up the escalatory ladder. It started with threats. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels at port. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels on the high seas. Then it was an attack on an unmanned American aircraft. Next it might be an attack on a manned American aircraft or a U.S. ship. And the message we are going to send is this: Well, the Congress thinks that the Commander in Chief and, for that matter, battalion commanders on the ground don't have the authority and the flexibility they need to take the appropriate response, as opposed to cowering inside bunkers and using some defensive measures.

Let's also think about the language of this amendment. A lot of people are going to come here and say that this is about our constitutional authority, and we need to reclaim our authority, and we have given up too much authority to the executive branch. In a lot of instances I would agree with that. But this amendment is only about Iran. It is not about China; it is not about Russia--even though this President has forced our Democratic friends to finally discover their inner cold warrior.

This is only about Iran in the context of Iran shooting down an American aircraft just a week ago. What better message can you send that this is not about our constitutional authority? This is about trying to tie the hands of a Commander in Chief whom they dislike at a time when a foreign nation is targeting our aircraft and our servicemembers.

This amendment would be a loud and clear message to the Ayatollahs that we will not strike back, that they can escalate even further, and that there will not be swift reprisal. If there is, it will generate intense controversy in our country. It will only embolden them further to march up that escalatory ladder and threaten American lives. It is a hall pass for Iranian escalation, really.

Look, there is no amendment, no bill, no paper resolution that can change the iron laws of geopolitics. Strength deters and weakness provokes. Wars are not won by paper resolutions. They are won by iron resolution. But this amendment embodies irresolution, weakness, timidity, diffidence.

This Congress on a good day can rename a post office, and that is only after months and months of debate about the post office. Are you telling me--are you telling me that if Iran shoots down an American aircraft or continues attacks on partners like the United Arab Emirates, then this Congress in a matter of minutes and hours is going to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to respond to that kind of provocation? Please.

There is a reason we have one Commander in Chief, not 535 commanders in chief--or, I say again, 535 battalion commanders, the level at which some of these decisions ought to be made.

Think about the kind of debates we have, the know-nothings we have seen here in Washington over the last couple of weeks who would say: Oh, it wasn't Iran that made the attack. OK, it was Iran, but maybe it wasn't authorized by the senior leadership of Iran. OK, it was authorized, but it didn't really do that much damage. It is kind of like the old line of: It is not my dog. He didn't bite you. You kicked him first. That is what that debate would devolve into while our troops are at risk.

This is a terrible amendment. It will do nothing but put more American lives at risk and imperil our interests and our partners throughout the region.

I know that the minority leader said earlier that he is worried about the President bumbling into war. He said it last week on TV too. Nations don't bumble into war.

He and others have raised the prospect of endless wars, the wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are long, and we have made lots of twists and turns on the way. But let's not forget that many of the Democrats in this Chamber voted to authorize those wars. We didn't bumble into those. They were considered, deliberate decisions.

President Trump said just a couple days ago that he is not talking about that kind of operation. He is talking about the exact kind of thing that Ronald Reagan did in response to Iranian aggression on the high seas. That didn't start a war. Ronald Reagan didn't start a war when he retaliated against Libya for acts of terrorism against our troops in 1986. Donald Trump didn't start a war when he struck Syria in 2017 and 2018 for gassing its own people. If you want a Democratic example, Bill Clinton didn't start a war when he struck Iraq in 1993 and 1998.

This amendment purports to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief relative only to a single nation, which just so happens to be the nation that just shot down an American aircraft. The only result that will come of this amendment passing will be to embolden the Ayatollahs and make more likely that which its proponents wish to avoid.

I urge all of my colleagues to see the reality of this amendment and to vote no tomorrow morning.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source