[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S172-S174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         War Powers Resolution

  Madam President, let me speak to an issue that has been raised this 
morning, which is timely and critically important. The President 
tweeted last week to the country: ``All is well.'' As we were teetering 
on the verge of war with Iran, he tweeted: ``All is well.''
  But now details have come to light, and it is clear that all is not 
well. U.S. servicemembers of Ain Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq faced a 
sustained hour and a half of Iranian retaliatory attacks last week--a 
barrage described by one of the most senior commanders on the base as 
``designed and organized to inflict as many casualties as possible.'' 
Contrary to the tweet by our President that all is well, reports from 
witnesses suggest that despite heroic planning, we were, in fact, very 
fortunate--if not lucky--that none of our U.S. personnel were killed.
  This gets me to the issue that needs to be brought before the Senate, 
one that goes to the heart of this Senate's critical, often neglected, 
constitutional responsibility. It is not whether Iranian General 
Soleimani was an enemy with American blood on his hands--that is a 
fact--but it is too simplistic to stop there. We have known that fact 
for a long time. Previous Presidents of both political parties have 
known General Soleimani's background--it is not in dispute--but it is a 
distraction to stop with that conversation.

  The real question is whether President Trump, when he made the 
decision to target General Soleimani, considered the possibility that 
it would quickly escalate into a much larger confrontation with Iran, 
which is the possibility of a war--a distinct possibility and one never 
authorized by Congress.
  Based on the administration's briefing last week, which I sat 
through, I

[[Page S173]]

doubt if even they think they need congressional authorization to ask 
our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters to participate in 
another war in the Middle East. The first question asked by Senator 
McConnell at the briefing, which was attended by the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, was whether there was a need for authorization under the War 
Powers Act before the United States continued to have its conflict with 
Iran. The answer that came from the Secretary of Defense was that there 
was no authorization necessary. He went on to say that he thought even 
the debate over authorization could be unsettling and troublesome for 
our troops if it appeared that we were uncertain as to whether we were 
ready to go to war.
  Based on that briefing, I doubt this administration believes any 
congressional authorization is needed for the military action that has 
been taken or that might even be contemplated. Quite simply, the fact 
that the Senate has not exercised its constitutional right, authority, 
and responsibility to determine whether we should go to war with Iran 
troubles me. I am deeply concerned that if Iran retaliates further or 
if the President decides to escalate the confrontation, this Chamber 
will not even recognize--let alone act on--its constitutional 
responsibility under Article I, Section 8.
  That is why I have joined my colleague and friend Senator Tim Kaine, 
of Virginia, in invoking the War Powers Act--a law passed over 
President Nixon's veto after Presidents of both parties deliberately 
misled the American people on the Vietnam war. It is hard for those who 
did not live during that era to appreciate what that war did to this 
Nation. First and foremost, it cost us almost 50,000 American lives, 
and hundreds of thousands of Americans were injured--men and women in 
uniform who bravely served our country. They gave their lives and came 
home with the scars they carried for their lifetimes. The billions of 
dollars that were spent and our involvement in that war, which divided 
this country at its core, are hard to put into words in just a few 
moments.
  At the end of it, though, Congress realized that it had failed in its 
own responsibility to even declare a war against Vietnam. So we passed 
the War Powers Act and set up a process that said we are not going to 
let that happen again, that the American people will participate in any 
future decisions about whether we go to war, and that they will do it 
through their elected Congressmen and elected Senators.
  The War Powers Act passed the Congress, and it was sent to President 
Nixon. He vetoed it and said we didn't want to give that additional 
authority to Congress. Then, in a rare, rare moment, Congress overrode 
President Nixon's veto, and the War Powers Act became the law of the 
land. That War Powers Act, I believe, applies to the current situation 
that is escalating with Iran. That is why I have joined with Senator 
Kaine in his invoking the War Powers Resolution.
  What I find particularly troubling about the administration's march 
to war in Iran is that the administration's own actions have 
contributed to the current tensions and problems we have with Iran. 
Before taking office, Iran's nuclear weapons program was halted because 
of an historic agreement President Obama negotiated. In cooperation 
with our allies in Europe, as well as with China and Russia, President 
Obama negotiated a treaty that required international inspectors to be 
on the ground in Iran to make certain that Iran lived up to its terms. 
Of course, Iran was not happy about these inspectors, but it accepted 
them. On several different occasions, we had representatives of those 
inspectors come and say, yes, that they had had virtually unlimited 
access to Iran in order to make certain Iran didn't violate the nuclear 
agreement. Iran continued in its malign behaviors in the region, but 
containment was easier without the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
  During the campaign, President Trump said the first thing he would do 
would be to eliminate that international agreement that required 
international inspectors, which is what stopped Iran from developing a 
nuclear weapon. It made no sense for the President to take the position 
that he did, but that is the position that he announced during the 
campaign, and that is exactly what he did after he was elected 
President. He withdrew the United States from this agreement that 
stopped Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Then he increased 
sanctions on Iran, and the tensions between our countries grew.
  The President pursued a policy of regime change that is very 
difficult to explain, if not to justify--trying to flatter on one day 
and to confront on the next day. He proposed to meet with President 
Rouhani, of Iran, to negotiate a supposedly bigger deal, a better deal. 
Then he threatened Iran militarily and tightened sanctions soon after. 
These efforts went nowhere except to increase tensions between the 
United States and Iran. Iran lashed out on American interests. We were 
alienated from many of our allies, particularly those who were party to 
the nuclear agreement, and Iran inched closer to restarting its nuclear 
program.
  In recent weeks alone, President Trump has managed to reverse the 
recent Iraqi protest settlement that warned Iran to stop meddling in 
its particular politics, which has led to the real possibility that 
American troops in Iraq that are critical to countering ISIS will be 
expelled.

  Similarly, after months of anti-government protests in Iran, 
President Trump has almost instantaneously united the Iranian public 
opinion against us with the targeting of General Soleimani. Iran has 
now announced it will exceed the limits of the nuclear program that 
were imposed by the nuclear agreement, from which President Trump 
walked away, and our interests around the region are on high alert for 
fear of a retaliatory attack by the Iranians.
  So there are real questions as to how President Trump's Iran policy 
serves long-term American security interests and as to whether this 
body is ready to at least debate the possibility of another war with 
Iran.
  Before President Trump plunges us into another reckless Middle East 
war, shouldn't we first remember how we were fooled into invading Iraq 
in the first place? I remember full well.
  I was a Member of the Senate when we were given the proposal of 
taking military action against Iraq because of its purported possession 
of these military devices that were threatening to the United States 
and to the region. Many of us were skeptical. The weapons of mass 
destruction charge didn't have the evidence that we thought was 
convincing. In the end, 23 Senators--22 Democrats and 1 Republican--
joined in voting against the invasion of Iraq. I was one of those 
Senators. I was not convinced there were weapons of mass destruction. 
After the invasion and after careful inspection, it turned out that 
there were no weapons of mass destruction--the single event that really 
brought us into the conflict.
  Then, as now, we were led to believe there was an urgent spiraling of 
events that required U.S. military intervention. Mark me down as 
skeptical--skeptical as to whether another invasion by the United 
States of a Muslim nation in the Middle East is in the best interest of 
national security.
  Many around President Trump, particularly Secretary of State Pompeo, 
have been speaking of this conflict with Iraq for a long period of 
time. Some of them are the same people who endorsed the invasion of 
Iraq almost 20 years ago. We are still in Iraq. We have given up more 
than 5,000 American lives, with many having been injured and with $1 
trillion or more having been spent.
  It is possible the Iraqis will just ask us to leave. Think of that. 
After all that we have put into their country, their legislature--their 
Parliament--voted several weeks ago to tell us to leave. In fact, one 
of the great tragedies of the Iraq war and one that few of its 
architects ever owned up to was that the Iraq war was actually 
empowering Iran in the region. Iran became a potent force because, in 
many respects, in its efforts in the Middle East, the United States 
created that opportunity.
  These same unrepentant voices are again beating the drums for regime 
change in Iran and another war in the Middle East. They do so with a 
President who has made more than 15,000 false or misleading statements 
while he has been in office--15,000--with his

[[Page S174]]

even going so far as to trust Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, 
over our own intelligence sources, making it impossible to trust 
anything he says when it comes to matters as grave as war.
  Some have even had the audacity to argue that the 2001 authorization 
for use of military force in Iraq is somehow a permission slip for the 
invasion of Iran. That is preposterous. I cannot imagine anyone here 
who took that vote 18 years ago thought that he was authorizing for 
future Presidents 18 years later to invade another country in the 
Middle East. I certainly didn't. The Constitution is clear. Article I, 
section 8 says the power to declare war is an explicit power of 
Congress, as it should be. One should never send our sons and daughters 
into war without having the knowledge and consent of the American 
people. Our Founding Fathers were wise in making sure this awesome 
power did not rest with a King or a Queen or anyone pretending to be 
but with the people of the United States and their elected 
Representatives.
  I have made this same argument and much of the same speech in the 
past regardless of whether the occupant of the White House was a 
Democrat or a Republican. This Congress, already afraid to stand up to 
many of President Trump's worst instincts, must not do so in a march to 
another war in the Middle East. As such, I urge my colleagues here to 
do our job and reaffirm the Senate's constitutional role in matters of 
war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Texas.