Risch in Floor Speech: President’s Strike on Iran “Brilliant”, in “Full Compliance” with Constitution

Click the image above to watch Chairman Risch's floor speech.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave the remarks below in a floor speech on the President’s authority to conduct strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“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 fighting between India and Pakistan began, he got involved, and he shut that 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's 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 is a resolution is not well taken.

“And I'm going to quote from the Executive Office of President statement on the policy.

“‘Senate Joint Resolution 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 12th, the International Atomic Energy 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.

“‘Joint resolution 59 should be rejected also because it purports to limit the President's Article 2 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.

“‘Senate Joint resolution 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's 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's 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 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 U.S. or Donald Trump or any other president sought to declare war in 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've heard a lot on the floor today about how important the Founding Fathers thought a Declaration of War was.

“They were absolutely right. It is just as right today as it was then.

“There's 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's a press of a button, and it happens instantaneously.

“That's 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 against Iran.

“Also, the Justice Department has opined that two Republican and Democrat presidents [did the same] and created a precedent as to when the president could use power.

“This strike is in full compliance with that guidance.

“The guidance is very simple.

“Number one, if the president is going to take action, it must, one, be in a national interest, and number two, be limited in nature, scope, and duration.

“And of course, that's 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 Constitution and statutes. Both open source reporting, and the classified briefing we received demonstrated that 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 advisors that the President Trump has.

“My colleagues 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, 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 that 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's 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. Thank you, Mr. President.”

These remarks have been lightly edited for clarity.

###