[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 14 (Thursday, January 25, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S255-S256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           National Security

  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.

[[Page S256]]

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.