Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 59

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, President Trump's actions to address Iran's nuclear weapons program last weekend didn't start a war; they ended a war. So I rise today to support President Trump's wisdom and leadership in decisively countering Iran's nuclear threat and, therefore, to oppose this ill-conceived joint resolution.

As a U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to Japan, I understand and respect the role that Congress plays in matters of war and peace, but I cannot and I will not support a resolution that removes the ability of the President of the United States to act decisively in defense of national interests, our allies, and our Armed Forces.

This resolution, if passed, would send a dangerous message not just to Iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime but also to every adversary who is seeking to exploit our domestic debates and internal divisions. This resolution would signal that America's resolve can be hamstrung by congressional hesitation at the very moment when clarity, unity, and strength are most needed.

I cannot state this strongly enough: President Trump acted entirely within his constitutional authority under article II and in accordance with his solemn duty to defend this Nation and to defend the American people. Operation Midnight Hammer was a targeted, strategic, and necessary use of force to eliminate immediate threats posed by the Iranian regime and its proxies. No American lives were lost or injured during this military operation, thanks to the leadership of President Trump, the advice and counsel of Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, and the brilliant planning and flawless execution of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

For decades, the Iranian regime has been attacking U.S. personnel, our allies, and our interests through its Revolutionary Guard, through Hezbollah and Hamas and Houthi terrorists, and through its missile programs and multiple cyber attacks. For decades, the Iranian regime has cynically violated international agreements to overtly and covertly pursue the capabilities necessary to make nuclear weapons on short notice.

The idea that the President, in the face of escalating threats, can only sit idly by until Congress can hold hearings and schedule votes is not just naive; it is reckless. This War Powers Resolution ignores the reality of modern warfare, and it would constrain the Commander in Chief at the precise moment when decisiveness is most critical. It elevates process over commonsense policy and political optics over operational necessity.

If the President had been forced to act in accordance with this resolution last week, the element of surprise would have been entirely lost, and the successful mission flown by our brave airmen would have been much different and, likely, much costlier.

Of course, Congress must be consulted. Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements. But we must not shackle our President in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line. We must not embolden the Ayatollahs in Tehran by showing division and delay because that is the path to endless wars, rather than the path to decisive victories.

President Trump acted wisely and proportionately to protect American lives. He acted to reestablish the credibility of our strategic deterrence. And he acted after decades of Iranian aggression that went largely unanswered by the previous administrations of President Joe Biden and Barack Obama. President Trump, once again, demonstrated decisive leadership in the service of peace and stability. That is the actual job of the Commander in Chief.

Let me conclude by repeating what I said at the start. President Trump's actions last weekend did not start a war. His actions ended a war. And not a single American life was lost.

We should not be here debating how to constrain effective Presidential leadership but, rather, discussing how to recognize effective leadership and support it. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 59.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source