-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States, the consensus of our Nation's Founders, and the weight of exhaustive historical precedent give the President the clear authority to use military force when American lives and interests are under attack. The Commander in Chief does not lack authority; rather, he is failing to sufficiently exercise the authority that he has.

Right now, every day, enemies of the United States are engaged in a campaign of brazen aggression that threatens American servicemembers, our interests, and our allies in the Middle East. This campaign is hardly new. Year after year, the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism trains, equips, finances, and coordinates efforts to drive America--the ``Great Satan''--from the Middle East and to wipe Israel-- the ``Little Satan''--off the map.

When President Biden took office, Senate Republicans warned him not to go soft on Iran. We urged him not to abandon maximum pressure, not to obsess over restoring a failed nuclear deal, and not to ignore Iran's relentless--relentless--campaign of terror. But the President failed to heed this advice. He ignored the 80-some attacks on U.S. troops over his first 2 years in office. He failed to recognize the killing of an American in an Iran-backed drone attack in Syria last March as a wake-up call. Instead, his administration slept through glaring indications that Iran-backed terror was actually reaching a tipping point.

So, today, America and our allies face an adversary profoundly undeterred. Iran's proxies are responsible for more than 150 lethal attacks--and counting--against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria since October 7 and for persistent strikes against U.S. warships and civilian vessels in the Red Sea, including just yesterday.

But we have yet to see signs that the administration understands how to compel Iran and its proxies to stop. Even with the world's strongest military at the ready, the Commander in Chief has failed to deter Iran and its proxies. Instead, a fear of escalation has only invited more aggression from Tehran to Moscow to Beijing.

For nearly 2 weeks, the President has hesitantly and intermittently directed strikes against low-value Houthi terrorist targets. He has played Whack-A-Mole against warehouses and launch sites but has left the terrorists' air defenses and command-and-control facilities intact. The same is true over in Iraq and Syria, where the U.S. response to Iran-backed terrorist attacks has been to impose limited damage on proxy storage and training facilities. Yet the administration has refused to impose meaningful costs on Tehran itself--on the architects of this entire regional conflict.

Tehran is happy to fight until the last Houthi, Hamas, or Hezbollah terrorist. That is literally why they use proxies--they are expendable. Until Iran feels that its own interests and its own IRGC officers across the region are threatened, attacks on U.S. forces will continue.

Now, while the President hesitates to use his constitutional authority, some of our colleagues seem to argue he shouldn't have this authority to begin with. They are profoundly mistaken. Exercising the right to defend against imminent threats to our Nation and servicemembers is a central responsibility of the Commander in Chief. His authority is enshrined in the Constitution, and its application dates back more than 200 years.

President Thomas Jefferson was hardly an enthusiastic proponent of a muscular executive, but his recognition of the threats to core national interests posed by the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean forged consensus around the appropriate roles of the article I and article II branches in the conduct of war.

Freedom of navigation has been a core national interest of the United States from the very, very beginning. If we aren't prepared to defend the vital sealanes on which our economy rests, there is really not much point in having a military.

If there is something our colleagues ought to be questioning, it is not our history or our Constitution; it is our President's judgment and understanding of deterrence as well as their own. If they oppose U.S. and coalition efforts to defend the freedom of navigation against Iran- backed terrorists, our colleagues simply should say so.

Just last month, the Senate voted on a resolution to compel the President to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria. That resolution failed 84 to 13. I suspect that even fewer of our colleagues would support a resolution to withdraw the Navy from the coalition we have built in the Red Sea. This is no time for 535 commanders in chief to dictate battlefield tactics from halfway around the world.

Congress can and should exercise the oversight of military operations through our own robust authorities. We can and must keep a firm grip on the power of the purse. But the President does not need additional authorities to deal with this threat.

I will oppose any effort to tie the hands of our military commanders or to limit the scope of their ability to go after terrorists who threaten our servicemembers as well as our interests. As General Mattis counseled a decade ago in the debate over modifying the 2001 AUMF, we must not ``reassure our adversary in advance about what we will not do.'' Instead, it is time for President Biden to reassure America and our allies that he intends to lead with strength.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source