[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 82 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2900-S2901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Iran

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate's 
failure to meet its constitutional obligation and conduct effective 
oversight of what seems to me and many others to be this 
administration's inexorable march toward war with Iran.
  This week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration 
is making plans to deploy 120,000 American troops to the Middle East in 
anticipation of a confrontation with Iran. It is no secret that some of 
the President's closest advisers are focused on regime change and 
possibly military engagement with Iran.
  I was encouraged by a story in the Washington Post that was posted 
last night. The headline of that story read as follows: ``Trump, 
frustrated by advisers, is not convinced the time is right to attack 
Iran.'' That was the headline in the version of the story reported by 
four Washington Post reporters. In pertinent part, the story indicated 
that the President thinks his advisers ``could rush the U.S. into a 
military confrontation with Iran.'' Then it goes on to further state 
that ``Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions.'' I 
am encouraged by that, but we have to be vigilant when it comes to this 
issue and the broader issue of the use of force.
  The plans that I mentioned before referred to by the New York Times 
apparently were submitted by Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan. These 
are

[[Page S2901]]

the most recent in a string of actions this administration has taken, 
from withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, to designating 
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps--the so-called IRGC--as a foreign 
terrorist organization, to suspending waivers that allow partner 
countries to continue importing Iranian oil.
  I have a long record of working to fight against Iranian aggression. 
We all know--and we have said it often, and we should say it again--
Iran is and has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism. For years, 
many of us, in a bipartisan way, have led efforts to confront Iran, to 
sanction Iran, to hold Iran accountable for its malign activity and 
actions in the Middle East and its actions to support terrorist 
organizations, whether it is Hezbollah or any other terrorist 
organization. We will continue that regardless of this debate.
  But when the New York Times talked about that military plan, they 
referred to a prior engagement, a prior military conflict--the conflict 
in Iraq. ``Echoes of Iraq War'' was what the Times said. These 
``echoes'' trigger memories and reflections of a misguided period of 
this body's history in which Congress approved a U.S. invasion of Iraq 
based upon faulty intelligence. By the end of that long war, thousands 
of Americans had been killed, and many more Americans had been wounded.
  In Pennsylvania alone, 197 Pennsylvanians were killed in action in 
the Iraq war and more than 1,200 were wounded. I haven't even talked 
about the conflict in Afghanistan, where Pennsylvania lost more than 
90. The last number I saw was 91 Pennsylvanians were killed in action 
in Afghanistan. Pennsylvania is well familiar with contributing 
fighting men and women to conflicts from the beginning of our Republic 
until this very day.
  The administration's actions on Iran also ``echo'' our ongoing 
stalemate--``stalemate'' might be an understatement--regarding the 
authorization for use of military force--the so-called AUMF--against 
ISIS, for example.
  If we don't debate and vote on an AUMF as it relates to Iran or any 
other country or any other conflict, we are not doing our job.
  For 6 years, the United States has been engaged in the fight against 
ISIS in Iraq and Syria. For many years, the executive branch has relied 
on the 2001 authorization for use of military force to justify its 
fight against ISIS, as well as to justify other military engagements.
  I ask Majority Leader McConnell to set aside time for sustained 
debate and votes on a new authorization for use of military force.
  Last month, Secretary of State Pompeo implied during testimony in 
front of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate that the 2001 
AUMF to go after al-Qaida and its affiliates authorizes war with Iran. 
A lot of people would disagree with that. I believe that an 18-year-old 
authorization needs an update--another understatement. The threats we 
confront today have evolved since 2001.
  As this administration seeks to link al-Qaida and Iran in 
anticipation of a military confrontation, I am concerned over the 
bipartisan failure to hold both this and the prior administration to 
account for their constitutional overreach over congressional 
authority.
  I commend Senator Kaine and other Senators from both parties for 
efforts over the last number of years to force a debate on 
congressional oversight over this issue.
  The majority leader should allow floor time and a robust debate on 
congressional war powers and oversight over the Executive's unilateral 
actions that send American troops overseas. The debate on the Yemen 
resolution and the vote--several votes, actually, on that--demonstrated 
that there is bipartisan concern over the use of force, but we need a 
broader debate than we had in the debate on the Yemen resolution.
  As this administration pursues a reckless strategy with Iran, it is 
time for a sustained debate and vote on a new authorization for use of 
military force that allows our Nation to, in fact, destroy terrorists 
and fight threats to U.S. national security but doesn't result in 
endless war. The 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force 
authorizing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are outdated and 
must be replaced.
  I will conclude with some words from Abraham Lincoln in that now-
famous letter to Mrs. Bixby in which he talked about the loss of her 
sons' lives in the Civil War. When they did the checks on it, it turned 
out to be two sons. When the President was writing, he thought she had 
lost five sons. But we still have families who suffer the loss of a son 
or a daughter in conflict--we hope not as many as two or more.
  In this case, in the second paragraph, President Lincoln said ``the 
grief of a loss so overwhelming.'' He then went on to say to this 
grieving mother:

       But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation 
     that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to 
     save.
       I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of 
     your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of 
     the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours 
     to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

  So said President Lincoln at that time.
  The words still ring true today--``the grief of a loss so 
overwhelming,'' the memory of ``the loved and lost.'' It goes on to 
read ``so costly a sacrifice.''
  Every President should read this letter as he or she deliberates 
about the use of force that commits our sons and daughters to fight and 
risk their lives. When we talk about so costly a sacrifice, we all know 
what happened in our State. Military families in Pennsylvania, in the 
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, endured so costly a sacrifice.
  I hope President Trump will reread this letter as he deliberates our 
next steps with regard to Iran and our next steps with regard to the 
authorization for the use of military force.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________