[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 109 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4588-S4589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATIONAL DEFENSE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter entirely, later 
today, the Senate will vote to fulfill a solemn responsibility. For the 
59th consecutive year, we will pass the National Defense Authorization 
Act. I hope and expect we will do it by a wide, bipartisan margin.
  It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this legislation 
to the ongoing missions of our Nation's men and women in uniform. The 
NDAA is simultaneously a target to guide the modernization of our all-
volunteer force; a supply line to restore readiness and keep U.S. 
personnel equipped with the most cutting-edge, lethal capabilities; a 
promise of critical support services to military families; and a 
declaration to both our allies and adversaries of America's strategic 
resolve.
  This year's bill authorizes the investments that will support all 
these bills and a major pay raise for military personnel to boot.
  I am especially proud that it supports the ongoing missions of 
Kentucky's installations and the many military families who call my 
State home.
  The NDAA is a product of a robust, bipartisan process that has 
consumed our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for weeks. 
Nearly 300 amendments were adopted during markup. So today, once again, 
I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for their 
leadership throughout this process. They produced legislation that each 
Member of this body should be proud of. Particularly in these troubled 
times, this is exactly--exactly--the message the Senate needs to send. 
I look forward to passing it today.
  Passing the NDAA itself is not the only important message the Senate 
will send this week on national security. On Friday morning, we will 
vote on a badly ill-conceived amendment that would literally make our 
Nation less secure and make American servicemembers less safe. I 
respect my colleagues, but this amendment from Senator Udall and others 
is a half-baked and dangerous measure--about as half-baked and 
dangerous as we have seen on the floor in quite some time. It should be 
soundly rejected.
  We know that our Democratic colleagues have political differences 
with President Trump--I think the whole country has gotten that message 
pretty loud and clear--but they have chosen a terrible time and a 
completely irresponsible manner to express themselves. Rather than work 
with the President, who shares the goal of avoiding war with Iran, they 
have gratuitously chosen to make him the enemy.
  Let me repeat that. Rather than work with the President to deter our 
actual enemies, they have chosen to make him the enemy.
  At the very moment that Iran has been stepping up its aggression 
throughout the Middle East, these Senators are proposing radical new 
restrictions on the administration's ability to defend U.S. interests 
and our partners.

[[Page S4589]]

  The Udall amendment would require the administration to secure 
explicit authorization from Congress before our forces would be able to 
respond to all kinds of potential Iranian attacks. That would include 
attacks on American civilians.
  Let me say that again. Some of our colleagues want us to go out of 
our way and create a brandnew obstacle that would block the President 
from swiftly responding if Iran attacks American civilians, our U.S. 
diplomatic facilities, or Israel, or the military forces of an ally or 
partner, or if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. In all of these 
scenarios, the Udall amendment would hamstring the executive branch 
from reacting quickly. In modern warfare, time is of the essence. The 
War Powers Resolution explicitly recognizes the reality that 
administrations may need to respond quickly and with flexibility.
  This amendment could even constrain our military from acting to 
prevent an imminent attack. As written, it appears to suggest they must 
absorb the attack, take the attack first before defending themselves. 
And even then, for how long would they be allowed to conduct 
retaliatory strikes? Completely absurd. Totally dangerous.
  Let's take an example. Iran attacks Israel. No timely response from 
the United States, especially if Congress happens to be on recess. Iran 
attacks American citizens. The President's hands would be tied. This is 
never how the American Presidency has worked, for a very good reason.
  So I would ask my colleagues to stop obsessing about Donald Trump for 
a moment and think about a scenario involving a future or past 
President. Hypothetically, then, would it be appropriate for Congress 
to tie a President's hands with legislation preventing military action 
to defend NATO allies from a Russian attack without explicit 
congressional approval? If conflict came in August and the United 
States and its NATO allies didn't act decisively, frontline states 
could be gobbled up before Congress could even convene to consider an 
AUMF.
  The Udall amendment would represent a huge departure from the basic 
flexibility that Presidents in both parties have always had to take 
immediate military steps, short of a full-scale war, to respond to 
immediate crises.
  This ploy is being advertised as some kind of courageous reassertion 
by Congress of our constitutional authority, but it is nothing of the 
sort. It is a departure from our constitutional traditions and norms.
  Nobody is talking about a full-scale war with Iran--not the 
President; not the administration. Heaven forbid, if that situation 
were to arrive, consultation with Congress and widespread public 
support would, of course, be necessary. The Udall amendment is 
something completely different. It defines self-defense in a laughably 
narrow way and then in all other situations proposes that President 
Trump should be stripped of the basic powers of his office unless 
Democrats in Congress write him a permission slip. I don't think so.
  This would be a terrible idea at any moment, let alone as Iran is 
escalating its violence and searching for any sign of American 
weakness.
  So I would ask my colleagues: Do not embolden Iran. Do not weaken our 
deterrence. Do not undermine our diplomacy. Do not tie the hands of our 
military commanders. Reject this dangerous mistake when we vote on the 
Udall amendment tomorrow.

                          ____________________