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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this unhelpful resolution. It is a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more.

President Trump's foreign policy successes have been several and should be celebrated not denigrated. For instance, recently his work when India and Pakistan started fighting, he got involved, and he had that shut down pretty quickly.

This morning, I had the good fortune to attend, with Secretary Rubio, an event at the State Department where a peace agreement was signed between Rwanda and the Congo. Both Rwanda and the Congo were effusive in their compliments of President Trump for negotiating the peace that happened.

So the President has been hard at work trying to be the President of peace that he really wants to be. First, I think that we ought to have a good statement from the administration as to why this resolution is not well-taken, and I am going to quote from the Executive Office of the President their statement on the policy.

S.J. Res. 59 fails to account for the dynamic security threat posed by Iran and its proxies and our commitments to force protection in the region.

On June 12, the International Atomic Agency Board of Governors found that Iran had failed to comply with its nuclear safeguards obligations. Iran immediately responded stating that it would establish a new uranium enrichment facility in a secure location and that other measures were being planned.

Israel took action against Iran, an action it believed was necessary for its self-defense. The United States' top priority is protecting American forces in the region. President Trump will take all necessary steps to protect our forces, deescalate conflict, and remain in close contact with our regional partners.

S.J. Res. 59 should be rejected also because it purports to limit the President's article II authority under the Constitution and could hinder the President's ability in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief to protect the United States from the continued threat posed by Iran and its proxies.

S.J. Res. 59 also could hinder the President's ability to protect the United States' forces in the region through actions to deescalate the threat posed by Iran and its proxies.

The operative part of this resolution that is before us states:

Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This might be appropriate if we were at war against Iran or, indeed, if there were hostilities against Iran, but we are not, and we do not intend to. You can't terminate something that is not going on. Every American is opposed to the long, drawn-out conflicts that we have, in our history, from time to time, experienced. I assure you that President Trump feels exactly the same way. He hates those long, drawn- out conflicts. He hates any kind of kinetic action but realizes that as Commander in Chief he has to take them at times.

The President did take a single strike against Iran at carefully calculated targets and in an even more carefully calculated time, much like what he did with General Soleimani in his first term that was so successful.

The strike on Iran was a single, brief strike at three nuclear bomb facilities that ended the conflict between Israel and Iran. It was on behalf of a close ally, Israel, and on behalf of the world, which is unanimously against Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Most importantly, it ended a war; it did not start a war. If the United States or Donald Trump or any other President sought to declare war on Iran, this would be well-taken. The Constitution is clear that only this body, the Congress of the United States, can declare war, but the Constitution and statutes are equally clear that the President not only may but must act to defend America and Americans at a time or place that a threat presents itself.

Congress has also spoken on the power of the President in the War Powers Act. Now, we have heard a lot on the floor today about how important the Founding Fathers thought declaration of war was. They were absolutely right. It is just as right today as it was then. There is a lot of difference between then and now. Then we had oceans protecting us on each side, and for a war to take place, it took months to unfold and to start.

In today's world, it is the press of a button, and it happens instantaneously. That is why Congress went in and passed the War Powers Act that gave the President the opportunity to defend America, and in that act, it provided things that the President had to do. He complied with that act exactly as it was put in place by Congress when he took the single-strike act against Iran.

Also, the Justice Department has opined to Republican and Democrat Presidents and created the precedent as to when the President could use power. This strike is in full compliance with that guidance. The guidance is very simple. No. 1, if the President is going to take action, it must, No. 1, be in the national interest and, No. 2, be limited in nature, scope, and duration. And, of course, that is further modified by the action that Congress has taken in the War Powers Act.

What this President did with this single strike was in full compliance with the constitutional statutes. Both open-source reporting and the classified briefing we received demonstrated this was a brilliant tactical move, which was brilliantly planned and executed after in-depth conversations with the intelligence community and the talented array of Presidential advisers that President Trump has.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle should do what we on our side of the aisle have been doing, and that is congratulate the President and the brave men and women who conceived and executed this spectacularly successful event and thank them and recognize that this ended the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Instead what we have seen is an attempt in every way to denigrate the action, downplay it, and berate this great and glorious victory. This resolution we have before us today is another sad attempt in that regard.

I understand that the hate and vitriol against our President precipitates this kind of thinking. It is wrong. This is ill-conceived and will telegraph that we Americans do not stand with our President or with Israel. That is also wrong.

Make no mistake, Iran is all alone in this. No one is coming to help them. This body, above all, should not be the entity that provides aid and comfort to Iran.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source