Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 111 (Friday, June 27, 2025)

[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 111 (Friday, June 27, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3583-S3595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 59

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, pursuant to section 601(b) of the
International Security Assistance and Arms Control Expert Act, I move
to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further
consideration of S.J. Res. 59, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed
Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have
not been authorized by Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to discharge.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, S.J. Res. 59, to direct the removal of United
States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic
Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, we will begin a couple of hours of debate
on this resolution prior to a vote that I understand is scheduled
around 6 or maybe a little bit thereafter.
I rise to talk about the resolution for the second time in the last
week, and I need to repeat all the points I made when I spoke about it
last week. I will just begin with this: I came to the Senate in January
of 2013, and I tell people that I came with 100 interests and 10
passions and 1 obsession. The obsession that I brought with me to this
body was an obsession that I will do everything possible I can to stop
the United States from getting into an unnecessary war.
Why did I bring that obsession with me in 2013? I brought it with me
because of the experience in Virginia during two wars over the course
of 20 years, from 2001 to 2021. I was Governor of Virginia from 2006 to
2010. I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia before that. Like every
State in this country, Virginia was deeply, deeply affected by the
global War on Terror.
When I was Governor of Virginia, I had the honor and responsibility--
but it was also a burden--of being the commander in chief of the
Virginia National Guard. That meant that I was with our Guard men and
women when they deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and when they came
home. I went to funerals. I went to wakes. These were very, very moving
experiences.
I visited, as Governor, our troops, our Guard men and women, in both
Iraq and Afghanistan during that period where the war was at a huge
upsurge. Thousands of Virginia Guard men and women were deployed during
those 4 years. Of course, because of who Virginia is, it wasn't just
our Guard men and women; it was also our Active-Duty, our DOD
civilians, civilians from other parts of the Federal family,
reservists, military contractors, DOD civilians and their families. The
cost of that 20 years of war on Virginia was very heavy.
I came with the obsession not only because of what I had seen in
terms of the effect of these wars on my Commonwealth and my country--
the deaths, the injuries, the longstanding mental health needs, the
tremendous expenditure of public treasure, the lack of clear and
positive results from that 20 years--but I also came with an obsession
on this topic because of watching the way the war started, particularly
the war in Iraq.
The United States was basically--the public and this body were
basically lied to about the extent of the Iraqi program of weapons of
mass destruction, and then an administration forced a vote on the floor
of this body right before a midterm election. The debate and vote
occurred in October of 2022.

[[Page S3584]]

I remember--at the time, I was Lieutenant Governor, and I was paying
attention to this, and I thought, what is the urgency about this debate
in October of 2022 right before a midterm election?
You might remember that the United States didn't even invade Iraq
until March of 2023. There was no urgency. There was none. But it was
determined to be politically expedient to force a debate before a
midterm election to try to give one party an edge in those midterms.
Yes, there was a vote, but it was timed and structured for political
rather than military reasons, and thousands of Americans, both soldiers
and contractors, lost their lives as a result.
So I came to this body fully believing that, yes, I am only 1 of 100,
but I am going to do everything I can to make sure that the United
States doesn't get into an unnecessary war and that if the issue ever
arises, Congress needs to fully debate any military mission before we
send our sons and daughters into war.
Now, I say this as a Senator from--I am going to argue this, and the
President will challenge me on this, but I am going to say Virginia is
the most pro-military State in the United States. Our military bases,
our veteran population, our reservists, our Guard, our military
families, our DOD civilians--our map is a map of American military
history: Yorktown, Appomattox, the Wilderness, Fredericksburg, the 9/11
attack on the Pentagon. Everything about Virginia is connected to our
Nation's military mission.
I know the President would make the same claim about Florida's
connection to our military. This would be a virtuous competition as we
would all talk about how pro-military our States are. But I believe
this deeply about Virginia.
My dad was an Army officer. One of my kids is a Marine officer. I
mean, this is family. And I am connected deeply as a member of the
Armed Services Committee to all of our military community.
I am not a pacifist. Every year, I work on the Armed Services
Committee to help write a defense bill and try to get it passed. I whip
votes on the floor for military aid packages to allies. There are bad
folks in the world. The United States needs to defend itself, and it
needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves. But our
troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian
leadership that only makes the decision to send them into war on the
basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public.

The other night when I spoke on the floor, I pointed out the history
of the way the Framers of our Constitution grappled with this question
in 1787. To just make it simple, they decided--contrary to the history
of the world and the way virtually every other country did it, they
decided that war was too big a decision for one person. I mean, they
were making this decision at the time that George Washington was
President. He was very respected and admired. He was a wartime general.
Deeply respected. But as much as they respected leaders like George
Washington, they said that war is too big a decision for one person.
So they wrote a Constitution and said that the United States should
not be at war without a vote of Congress. Defense against an attack or
an imminent attack? Yes, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the
power to do that. But to go on offense against another nation or an
entity, like a terrorist group--and there were terrorist groups back in
the days, like the Barbary Coast pirates. From the very beginning, we
have confronted threats not just by nation states but by others.
But the decision was that it was too big a decision for any one
person; we should only go to war after a debate--not only in Congress,
where we put our thumbprint on ``This is a national mission we are
risking our sons and daughters' lives for,'' we have a debate in front
of the entire public so they can understand the stakes.
War is too big for any one person.
I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big
to be consigned to the decisions of any one person.
Our current Commander in Chief, on his social media account a day or
two after the attack in Iran, put up a music video with lyrics that
were matched to a Beach Boys song, ``Barbara Ann,'' but the music video
contained these lyrics: ``Bomb bomb Iran; bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran
. . . ; went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks . . . ; time to turn
Iran into a parking lot.''
We shouldn't premise a decision to send our sons and daughters into
war on the judgment of a single person.
The President patted himself on the back, and he compared the attack
to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was a most unusual--most unusual--
comparison.
I haven't put all the lyrics of the song up on my chart, but one of
the other lyrics was about sending the Ayatollah home in a box. I mean,
is this some kind of a joke? Is this the way we treat war now? We run a
victory lap, overstate it, and we turn it into a funny music video, or
we use a Hiroshima and Nagasaki comparison as if that is like a good
thing?
War is too big to leave the decision to send our sons and daughters
and risk their lives on the say-so of one person.
We had some turmoil this week in the Senate. We were going to have a
briefing on Tuesday from the national security officials in the
administration. They had to postpone it until Thursday because they
were fighting with themselves and they were fighting with reporters
about intelligence that had come out that the President wasn't happy
about.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, he said that the Iranian
nuclear program had been completely obliterated. All sources--Iranian
sources, Israeli sources, the IAEA, the United States--have said
``severe damage,'' but because the President sort of went overboard
with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki claims, reporters started to dig into
it. Then the President got mad, and then his Secretary of Defense
started to name-call reporters who were asking basic questions.
War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the
daily vibes of any one person. That is why the Founders said that
unless it is imminent defense--and in this case, it wasn't. The Israeli
Foreign Minister had said before the U.S. attack that their attacks had
already set the Iranian program back at least 2 or 3 years. That is a
direct quote from the Israelis who follow this very closely. If the
program had been set back at least 2 or 3 years, what was the urgency
that suggested we needed to take this action without a debate in
Congress?
It was not only done without congressional authorization, it was also
done without congressional consultation, and it was done without
congressional notification of Democratic leaders. Republican leaders
were given a briefing, but for the first time during my time here, no
Democrat in a leadership position on the key committees was given an
advance notice of this. Is war now to be a partisan thing where the
White House just notifies those of the same party?
I have tried to be consistent about this. When I came to the Senate
in 2013 with this passion that I am going to do anything I can to stop
an unnecessary war, within a few months of arriving here, President
Obama, who is a personal friend, was contemplating military action in
Syria. I looked my friend in the eye, and I said: You do not have
congressional authority to do that. You need to bring this to Congress.
Hey, I thought you were my supporter. I thought you were my friend
and you would support this.
I do support you, and I think you have good judgment, and I think you
are likely to make a careful decision, but war is too big an issue to
leave in the hands of even a completely careful and deliberative of
individual.
The Framers didn't want to leave war in the hands of George
Washington, for God's sake. They thought Congress should be involved in
it.
I said to President Obama: You need to bring this to Congress.
And guess what. A lot of Members of this body said the same thing.
Seven Members of the Senate right now were in the House in 2013. I
have a letter that many of them wrote. Six Members who are currently
Republican Members of the Senate signed this.
August 28, 2013:

Dear Mr. President, we strongly urge you to consult and
receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use
of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do

[[Page S3585]]

so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers
Resolution of 1973.

We were in a recess then--it was August--but they said:

If you deem that military action . . . is necessary,
Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to
come back into session, consider the facts before us, and
share the burden of decisions regarding U.S. involvement in
the quickly escalading Syrian conflict.

Six Republican Members of this body signed that letter in 2013, but
based on their public statements, they seem to have a different
standard for President Trump than they did for President Obama, a
different standard for war against Iran than they did for war against
Syria.
There is one Member who signed this letter who is consistent:
Congressman Peter Welch, who is now in the Senate. He signed this
letter to the President of his own party, saying you can't do this
without a vote of Congress, come to Congress. And he is taking the same
position on the floor today, consistent with what he did then.
I am going to conclude and just say this: I know everybody in this
body is praying that the cease-fire that is in place now, for a couple
of days, works and that it holds.
I know everybody is praying that when the administration now says
they are interested in a diplomatic resolution to this program, that
they will have learned that they shouldn't tear up diplomatic deals
that they did in 2018 but instead should prefer diplomacy and step back
from war against Iran.
I pray that that holds and that we won't need to be back here doing
this again, but I do note that the President, even today, said he would
certainly bomb Iran again.
I am hoping--I am realistic--but I am hoping that Members of this
body will stand up for the Constitution, will stand up for the
proposition that war is too big to be decided by one person, will stand
up for the principles that they articulated pretty clearly when it came
to President Obama thinking about taking war into Syria.
At that moment, when we urged President Obama to do that, he didn't
use military force. He did bring it to Congress. We had a debate in the
Foreign Relations Committee. We passed an authorization, and in that
debate, Syria stepped forward and said they would give up their
chemical weapons program. Diplomacy achieved a result, just as
diplomacy achieved a more effective control of the Iranian nuclear
program--even than the bombs that we dropped last Saturday--until it
was torn up.
I pray the cease-fire continues, but I fear we are going to be back
here on this floor. And I hope when we are on this floor again, Members
of this body will stand for the proposition that has been part of our
history that war is too big an issue to allow one person to make the
decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator
Kaine's War Powers Resolution to make crystal clear that, as required
by the Constitution of the United States, the President may not take
offensive military action against Iran or any other country without
congressional approval.
Last Saturday, the world learned through a social media post by
Donald Trump that he had ordered an attack on three of Iran's nuclear
enrichment sites, the first-ever direct U.S. military assault on
Iranian territory.
We all agree that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, but bombing
is not the best, most sustainable way of achieving that goal, and
nothing--nothing--I heard yesterday at the intelligence briefing
changes that assessment.
The bombing attack was also a clear violation of the U.S.
Constitution, which reserves to the Congress the power to declare war.
And make no mistake, initiating a bombing attack against another
country is not only a matter of foreign policy, it is an act of war.
For anyone who claims otherwise, I ask them to consider this: What
would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over
our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it
was, an act of war.
While the President has the authority to defend the United States
when attacked, article I of the Constitution vests the responsibility
to go to war explicitly and exclusively in the Congress, not in one
person in the Oval Office.
James Madison put it best in 1793 when he wrote:

[I]n no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found
than in the clause which confides the question of war or
peace to the legislature, and not to the executive. . . . The
trust and temptation would be too great for any one man.

That is why the Framers of the Constitution designed a system of
checks and balances to stop the government from ignoring the will of
the American people, and the American people absolutely do not want the
United States to be dragged into war, unnecessary wars.
So beyond the debate over the particular politics or policy of
President Trump's decision to attack Iran, this debate is about the
rule of law. And no President--past, present, or future--is above the
law. Those strikes violated American law, and prominent legal experts
have said they also violated international law.
The fact that there is now a cease-fire in place does not obviate the
need to pass this resolution. President Trump has already shown that he
is willing to initiate hostilities on his own, and, indeed, as Senator
Kaine just mentioned, President Trump just said a few hours ago that he
would ``absolutely'' consider bombing Iran again.
And just last month, when asked whether he needs to uphold the
Constitution of the United States, President Trump answered: ``I don't
know.''
We, the U.S. Senate and the House, should make clear that compliance
with our Constitution is not optional.
Now, President Trump did not just attack another country in violation
of the Constitution, he did so in spite of the facts presented by our
own U.S. intelligence Agencies. Just 3 months ago, the U.S.
intelligence community noted that they ``continue to assess that Iran
is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not
authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.''
That assessment has been reaffirmed year after year since at least
2007 that Iran was not producing a nuclear weapon and had not made a
decision to do so. You would think that the facts and intelligence
assessments would matter when a President chooses to attack another
country. Apparently, not in this case.
Indeed, when President Trump was confronted with the U.S.
intelligence community's assessment just days before he launched the
attack, he dismissed it. It was an inconvenient fact. It was
inconvenient because it showed there was more time for diplomacy to
work, time to get a negotiated solution.
Secretary Rubio was asked about this intelligence assessment after
the United States bombed Iran. His answer, very revealing, he said:
``Forget about the intelligence'' and then went on to try to justify
the timing of the attack.
Now, as I said earlier, most, if not all of us, agree that Iran must
not have a nuclear weapon, which would pose an existential threat to
Israel, threaten America's interests in the region by further
emboldening Iran's malign actions, and increase the risk of nuclear
proliferation throughout the Middle East.
So the question is, How do we best accomplish that goal in a durable
way that doesn't unleash unintended consequences and put Americans and
others at greater risk?
President Obama answered that question. That is exactly what he
accomplished through the agreement his administration negotiated with
Iran 10 years ago this July.
President Obama made a deal with Iran to prevent it from building a
nuclear weapon, and the agreement was working. Iran was subject to
round-the-clock, 24-hour inspections from the International Atomic
Energy Agency. That agreement made the whole world a safer place.
But in his very first term, Donald Trump ripped up that deal. Not
surprisingly, Iran began to enrich uranium at higher levels, though
still not at the 90 percent level needed for bomb-grade material.
Now, by the time Donald Trump returned to the White House this year,

[[Page S3586]]

even he and his administration had come to understand that the best way
to ensure that Iran does not decide to develop a nuclear weapon is
through negotiation. That is why, earlier this year, he dispatched his
special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to open negotiations with Iran, and those
negotiations were ongoing. Indeed, the sixth round of discussions were
scheduled to take place on Sunday, June 15, just 2 days before the
Netanyahu government launched its attacks on Iran. Not surprisingly,
that Israeli attack derailed the ongoing United States-Iran
negotiations.
It is important to remember that a decade earlier, Prime Minister
Netanyahu worked very hard to derail President Obama's ongoing
negotiations with Iran. Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu even addressed
a joint session of Congress, urging the Congress not to proceed with
those negotiations.
Prime Minister Netanyahu did not succeed in derailing President
Obama's JCPOA. That agreement went into effect, and it did make the
world and our country and Israel a safer place.
But unlike then, Prime Minister Netanyahu succeeded this time. He
outmaneuvered Donald Trump. That story is well-documented in a June 17
New York Times piece entitled ``How Trump Shifted on Iran Under
Pressure from Israel'' and a June 23 Washington Post story entitled
``Netanyahu decided on Iran war last year, then sought to recruit
Trump.''
Simply put, Prime Minister Netanyahu accomplished that goal.
President Trump joined his war of choice against Iran. And in doing so,
President Trump put our men and women in uniform in the region in grave
danger and unnecessary risk.
Following the attack, Iran fired 14 missiles at a major U.S. air base
in Qatar. Fortunately, Iran gave the United States and Qatar advance
warning, and there were no casualties. But the full extent of Iranian
retaliation could play out throughout the region and other places
around the world over a long period of time.
And what was accomplished? What was accomplished? To hear President
Trump tell it, the Iranian nuclear program was ``obliterated.'' That is
flatout untrue--untrue.
We know from public reporting that a Defense Intelligence Agency
assessment found that the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program
by ``a few months.''
Whether it is a few months or somewhat longer, the point is this: The
strikes did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Before the attacks,
U.S. intelligence assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon,
and in the aftermath of the attacks, Iran may well change its mind and
move forward.
So President Trump disregarded a politically inconvenient U.S.
intelligence assessment when he launched the attacks, and he is now
making up his own politically convenient narrative about the results.
What has been particularly cowardly is the Trump administration's
efforts to escape their own failures by hiding behind the amazing men
and women of the U.S. military. To hear President Trump and Secretary
of Defense Hegseth tell it, any criticism of their decision to attack
Iran is somehow a criticism of the American military. This is garbage,
and they know it. Our service men and women performed their mission
flawlessly, and they did it with courage and with resolve.
It is especially rich to see Donald Trump, who has so often insulted
and belittled our military heroes, now try to hide his own failings
behind them.
So let's be clear, while we owe our servicemembers a debt of
gratitude, we do not owe that debt of gratitude to President Trump or
members of his Cabinet for their decisions or for their current efforts
to manipulate the narrative about the results of the attack.
I have to say, as my colleague Senator Kaine mentioned, that the
spectacle of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth berating the press
for questioning their claims that the Iranian nuclear program had been
``obliterated'' only revealed their manic desperation to hide the
truth.
Remember when President George Bush declared, with respect to Iraq,
``Mission accomplished''?
What President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are communicating is that
it is somehow treasonous to ask about intelligence reporting that casts
doubts on their claims. This is not only an effort to intimidate and
silence the press. It also sends a terrible message to all the
intelligence analysts in the U.S. Government. It says that anybody who
presents facts that don't fit President Trump's political narrative is
trying to, as Secretary Hegseth said, ``make the President look bad''
or ``undermining the success of our pilots'' or ``trying to manipulate
the public mind.''
That is ridiculous. We have already seen the dangers of manipulating
intelligence to fit the President's narrative, rather than fidelity to
the facts. The United States went to war in Iraq under false pretenses.
Remember when the Bush administration told America that Iraq was
developing weapons of mass destruction? Remember when Vice President
Cheney warned, in March 2003, that ``if there's a mushroom cloud in New
York, you will know that Saddam Hussein is behind it.'' And, of course,
there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So false intelligence and false narratives that fan the flames of
unnecessary wars cost us dearly. The Iraq war cost the lives of over
4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars of American
taxpayer money. The war upended the region, killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, strengthened Iran, and unleashed ISIS on
the world. It was the worst U.S. foreign policy blunder in a
generation.
The Trump administration has now created a culture of fear and
retribution throughout the Federal Government. We have already seen
patriotic Federal employees be fired for telling the truth. A
whistleblower just filed a complaint the other day. He had been at the
Justice Department. He said: I didn't sign up to lie.
So the real challenge is this: The President has not obliterated the
Iran nuclear program, but he is doing everything he can to obliterate
the credibility of the U.S. intelligence community so he can invent his
own reality without contradiction. That is why it is more important
than ever that Congress stand up for the Constitution and insist that
the President cannot initiate hostilities without approval from
Congress.
That is what this resolution asks. It asks: Do you support the
Constitution and the role it gives to Congress to declare war? Do you
believe that the people's representatives should have a voice in
whether American lives and, specifically, the lives of our Nation's
Armed Forces, are put at grave risk?
We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the American people to
ensure that no President--not this President or any other--can
unilaterally commit our Nation to go to war.
The Constitution does entrust that responsibility to us. Let's not
abdicate it.
Colleagues, I urge you to vote yes on the Kaine War Powers
Resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator
Kaine's resolution for the simple and compelling reason that it upholds
our constitutional duty. Regardless of what people may think of the
military's execution of its mission last weekend--and our
servicemembers performed with courage, with professionalism, with
extraordinary precision--or their views of its effectiveness--and I
hope and pray the mission was effective--Iran is a malevolent regime,
it is the paramount sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it must
never be allowed to obtain the bomb.
Regardless of whether you support the President's decision to engage
in preemptive strikes in the first place, regardless of whether or not
you support the President generally or you do not, the Constitution
charges the Congress, not the President, with the power to declare war.
Now, there may be a fog of war and a murky uncertainty concerning the
battle damage assessment, but there is no ambiguity here when it comes
to the Constitution. Article I, section 8 provides that ``Congress
shall have [the] Power . . . To declare War''--not the President, or
the President if it is not convenient to the Congress, but the
Congress. And this body, for far too long, has been allergic to the
responsibility it has to govern the use of military force.
Not since the very early part of this century has Congress approved
any authorization for the use of military

[[Page S3587]]

force. Nevertheless, a great deal of military force has been, in fact,
used by the United States, since then, in far-flung places in the
world.
In fact, post-World War II, the war powers have been utilized by an
increasingly strong Executive and an increasingly deferential and
fearful legislature.
Now, during the last several weeks, it has been apparent to anyone
watching that the conflict in the Middle East had the potential to draw
in the United States of America--when missiles began striking Tehran
and Tel Aviv; when the President of the United States, with signature
bombast, began to telegraph the possibility that we would enter the
fray; when countless American families were forced to consider whether
their children would be the next to bear the burden and carry the
sacrifices of another potentially endless war in the Middle East.

And so with those families and our servicemembers in mind, Senator
Kaine introduced this resolution to ensure that the President did not
risk committing the United States to yet another open-ended conflict in
the region without a debate in Congress and a decision by Congress as
to whether the country should go down that dangerous road.
Now, at that time, many Senators, myself included, pushed for an
intelligence briefing from the administration. We had significant
questions we needed answered: Had Iran made the decision to build a
bomb? Had Iran begun the process of building the mechanism of a bomb?
Was there an imminent threat to the United States or our forces? What
were the threats to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region, should
Iran respond? How might Iran and its proxies escalate and harm U.S.
interests, not only in the region but here at home and in other parts
of the world? How much damage could U.S. military action do to the
Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and for how long would it set
them back? And, most important, what was the risk that such a bombing
campaign could escalate into all-out war?
Days passed, no briefings. Even after last Saturday's strikes, still
no briefing. Not until yesterday did the administration come to
Congress to answer the most basic of questions, and only after
suggesting, it was reported, that they would potentially choke off
further information to the Congress.
The Constitution demands otherwise. The Founders split the
government's wartime powers, just as they divided responsibilities for
so many other things. It is Congress which declares a war, which raises
an army and a navy and pays for the financial cost of defense and war.
And keep in mind that the need for congressional approval of
warmaking was not hypothetical to the Founders. The United States had
just fought a war against a King, and the Founders did not want to put
the power to start another war in the hands of any single person.
The Framers put their thinking on parchment, and in a letter to
Thomas Jefferson, in the summer of 1789, James Madison reflected on how
they had approached this question of war power, which was the subject
of much debate in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention. He
said:

We have already given, in one example, [an] effectual check
to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him
loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those
who are to spend to those who are to pay.

``From those who are to spend to those who are to pay''--that is
because a decision as consequential as entering into war requires
informed debate and buy-in from the people's representatives and the
public, from us here in the Senate and from our colleagues in the
House, because we need to weigh the benefits and the risks for our
constituents and for the country as a whole, because a decision like
this one should be insulated from partisan politics and not made with
haste or with blinders on.
There are, perhaps, Senators in this body who will say: This debate
is no longer needed. The mission is over. Iran has backed down. A
lasting cease-fire is in place. The threat has passed.
And I would say to them: I don't know that to be true, and neither do
you.
And on behalf of all those who could and would pay, we should not
allow this great and solemn power to make war to be usurped any longer.
The only way for us to know whether the United States might be drawn
into a broader conflict is if we exercise our authority to prevent it
or to determine that the Congress wants to affirmatively provide a
President with the authorization to use force.
So I am a yes on this resolution.
And if the Senate votes to bring this resolution before the body,
which I hope it will see the wisdom of doing, I will move an amendment
that I have filed with Senators Kim and Kaine that I would hope would
receive all of our support. Our amendment makes clear what is implicit
in Senator Kaine's resolution already, and that is that terminating the
use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iran does not affect the ability of
the United States to defend itself, to share intelligence with Israel
or our other partner nations, or to assist them in taking defensive
measures to protect themselves from an attack by Iran or its proxies.
Our intent in this amendment is to make it crystal clear that calling
up and passing this resolution would in no way restrict the United
States' ability to defend itself or our partners.
And with that question settled, we should be able to turn to the real
need for this debate: Should this Congress continue to abdicate our
constitutional duty to an administration that, at every turn--at every
turn--has deemed us irrelevant; an administration that, for too long,
deferred its obligation to brief Congress and has reportedly threatened
to take steps to choke off the amount of information we have and need
to assess the impact and the consequences of unilateral military
action; an administration that openly disdains and threatens a free
press, ignoring the fact that our fourth estate exists to ask questions
for the people, even if those questions are uncomfortable--especially
when those questions are uncomfortable--and shine a light on the places
where tyranny and despotism can grow and foster and fester?
Because here is the bottom line: Article I, section 8 says that ``the
Congress shall have [the] Power . . . To declare War.''
And every American should know that Congress is not giving up on its
most basic constitutional right to debate and determine whether U.S.
forces undertake further operations--offensive operations--against the
Iranian regime or any other.
This resolution, with my amendment, would give Senators confidence
that a vote on that question will in no way put American troops or our
allies at increased risk, and the underlying resolution would give the
American people the confidence of knowing that they will not be dragged
into another war without their consent.
There must be a check on the dogs of war. There must be a voice for
those who will pay the costs of going to war, and the Senate must be
that voice.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from
California and particularly appreciate that my colleague from Virginia
Senator Kaine has proposed this War Powers Resolution, a resolution
that reaffirms a basic principle: The decisions of war and peace belong
under our Constitution to Congress, not to the President.
But on June 21, President Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian
nuclear facilities. There was no congressional authorization. There was
no debate in this Chamber. There was no vote in this Chamber. The
President made a unilateral decision that risked bringing the United
States into another extended war in the Middle East.
That is not how our Founders designed our Nation through the
architecture of the Constitution. In fact, each Member here swore an
oath to uphold that Constitution that places the responsibility for
declaring war upon this body, not upon the individual who sits in the
Oval Office. To be sure, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the
responsibility to protect the Nation from an imminent threat. But in
this case, there was not an imminent threat.
First, according to our own intelligence, Iran was not pursuing a
nuclear weapon. Second, even though Iran possessed a significant amount
of 60-

[[Page S3588]]

percent-enriched uranium--more than the 3 percent to 5 percent that is
utilized for civilian energy--it was still not enriched to the level to
build a bomb. It would have had to be enriched to 90 percent. It would
have had to be converted to metallic form. It would have had to be
arranged with an extensive system of explosives that compress it in
order to start a chain reaction. That is a very difficult engineering
feat. Third, prior to the U.S. strikes, Israel's Foreign Minister said
Israel's attacks had already set back Iran's nuclear weapon program for
at least 2 to 3 years.
So let's be clear, the threat was not imminent. It was not a
situation where there was no time for the President to observe the
Constitution, to honor the Constitution, to seek an authorization for
the use of military force from the Congress of the United States.
The administration, instead, acted precipitously, putting American
lives at risk, including the over 40,000 U.S. troops in the region, as
well as diplomats and American civilians stationed or visiting the
Middle East.
Wars are easy to start, but they are often hard to end, and the
consequences can be enormous. Look, for example, at the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq: more than 7,000 deaths of American men
and women serving in uniform, more than 50,000 serious injuries--often
life-altering injuries--to America's sons and daughters serving in
uniform, more than $8 trillion of American treasure spent.
That is why the Founders said the consequences of conflict, of
entering into war, are so significant they must never be entrusted to a
single person, not even the person who sits in the Oval Office. That is
why they wrote the Constitution, placing the responsibility for that
here where it can be wrestled with; where it can be debated; where
different perspectives can be brought to bear; where experts can be
interviewed; and all can be taken into account in making such an
important decision for our Nation.
From where we are right now, two things need to happen: First,
Congress needs to reassert its constitutional authority over matters of
war and peace; second, we need to double down on diplomacy to secure a
lasting peace.
And a lasting peace includes at least three elements: Iran does not
develop a nuclear weapon; second, Iran stops funding militias across
the region; and, third, Iran's economy is freed up to prosper. Those
are the three elements that need to be addressed.
Let me begin, first, by addressing in some greater detail Congress's
need to reassert its constitutional authority. On ``Meet the Press'' on
Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham said:

You can't have 535 Commanders in Chief.

He is exactly right. And that is why the Founders designed the
Constitution with a separation of powers. Congress has the
responsibility to decide if we go to war, and then the President
commands our military to go to war.
Article I gives Congress the power to declare a war and article II
gives the President the power to be the Commander in Chief to execute
the war. Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution says hostilities in Iran
must be explicitly authorized by Congress, but that does not, in any
way, prevent the United States from defending itself from an imminent
attack should that need arise.
This is a privileged resolution, meaning that we will have the
opportunity to wrestle with it. And we will be voting on whether to do
so later today.
This resolution is urgently needed. We are already in the throes of a
slide into an authoritarian state. Our President has been ignoring the
Constitution or violating the Constitution by violating the rule of law
that applies to the executive branch; by ignoring or suppressing or
circumventing due process, the very issue that protects all of us from
an overbearing Executive. In fact, it is the defender of our freedom;
third, stiff-arming the courts; and, fourth, seizing Congress's power
of the purse.
And then just this week, it was reported that Trump will limit
intelligence sharing with Congress, another brazen attempt to
centralize powers in the executive in a strongman Presidency.
With this resolution, Senator Kaine's resolution, Congress can
reassert its constitutional authority as a coequal branch of
government. It can stop this President from seizing even more
dangerously unaccountable power.
In addition to Congress taking this action, there is an urgent need
for diplomacy in order to secure a lasting peace in the Middle East.
That lasting peace includes the three elements that I mentioned: that
Iran does not have the path to developing a nuclear weapon; that it
stops funding militias across the region; and that Iran's economy is
freed up to prosper. They can reenter international commerce.
It is already clear that diplomacy is not just essential but that it
is effective. In 2015, the United States helped negotiate the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal,
which blocked all paths for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. It
blocked the plutonium path; it blocked the uranium path; it blocked the
covert path.
That deal was so important for global security that it involved the
United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France, all
working together to create that framework in partnership with Iran. And
Iran accepted massive inspections and oversight from the International
Atomic Energy Agency to make sure that you not only had an act of
trust, but lots of acts of verification. The deal worked. Iran was not
developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, they dismantled their plutonium-
based Arak heavy water reactor. They agreed not to enrich uranium
beyond 6.7 percent, and they didn't do so. They shipped all of their
more highly enriched uranium out of the country--some 25,000 pounds--to
be stored abroad.
But 3 years later, President Trump tore up that agreement. He did so
over the objections of his own national security officials; over the
objection of his Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis; over the
objection of his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; over the objection
of his National Security Advisor General McMaster; and over the
objection of his Chief of Staff General John Kelly.
Had President Trump, in his first administration, not torn up that
agreement, we would be celebrating Iran's tenth anniversary under the
nuclear deal with no path to a nuclear weapon. By ripping up the Iran
nuclear deal, Trump opened the pathway for Iran to enrich beyond 3.67
percent, leading to the concerns that prompted Israel to attack Iran's
nuclear facilities and that led Prime Minister Netanyahu to ask
President Trump to use our planes and our abilities to bomb Isfahan,
Natanz, and Fordo.
To create an enduring agreement now that stops Iran from having a
path to a nuclear weapon, restrictions like those that were in the Iran
nuclear deal back in 2015 have to be recreated. And, in fact, we
learned over the last few days how diplomats from President Trump's
team have been working on this, were in conversation with Iran before
Israel's attack to create such an arrangement. In fact, they continued
those conversations even as bombs were dropping.
We have to succeed to put in place a permanent, detailed, enforceable
plan for peace which Iran agrees to, that stops funding for militias
outside Iran and blocks all those paths to a nuclear weapon.
Colleagues, we wouldn't be here today discussing this if President
Trump hadn't torn up the first agreement that was working against the
advice of his entire foreign affairs and security staff. That is what
happens when you scoff at diplomacy--diplomacy that works, agreements
that worked--and unleash events in the world that lead to circumstances
that realized themselves this year in 2025.
The decision to strike Iran without authorization from Congress was
wrong because there wasn't the imminent threat and, thus, there was
time to go through the process of seeking authorization for the use of
military force necessitated by our Constitution.
Wars are easy to start, but they are hard to end, and that is why the
Founders wanted us to debate them before the American people. We must
reassert Congress's congressional authority. We must double down on
diplomacy to secure long-term peace. We cannot allow our servicemembers
in uniform to be sent to war if we are not even willing to debate and
vote on that war.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

[[Page S3589]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I do not want the United States of
America to be involved in yet another regime-change war in Iran. Have
we not learned anything from what happened in Iraq? We deposed Saddam
Hussein, and all hell broke loose. That was a war of regime change--no
sense since it wasn't related to 9/11.
We had a regime-change war in Afghanistan and then went on to embrace
nation building. Thousands of American men and women who answered the
call of the President reported for duty, lost their lives, lost their
limbs, or are suffering today with PTSD. Trillions of taxpayer dollars
have been spent and wasted. Yet, in the Middle East, the flashpoint now
is Iran, and we came within an eyelash of getting dragged into yet
another war where the goal was regime change.

I want to acknowledge the professionalism of our Air Force and our
men and women in the military. The strike they were ordered to perform
they executed flawlessly. To them, I extend my congratulations.
But the question for us is, Who authorizes the use of force? Our men
and women will do what it is the Commander in Chief requires and do
what it is Congress authorizes. We all have confidence in that. But
this was a wake-up call for us because we came within an eyelash of
being in a conflict where the goal would have been the Netanyahu goal
of regime change.
What we did in this action, with the President's decision to send our
bombers in at the request of Netanyahu, was to essentially put in the
hands of the Iranian Government the question of how far this war would
go. Would they turn the other cheek, which is essentially what they
did, or would they retaliate in a way, as President Trump said, that he
would rain hellfire on them and have us in a war?
The point here of the Kaine resolution is that if this country is
going to make that decision, it must be Congress that authorizes that
decision. It must be Congress that has the debate about what are the
national security concerns, what are the costs, and what are the
benefits. We can't simply bypass that and continue to abdicate our
responsibility and congressional authority and duty, and that is why
this resolution is so important.
Now this question of, how did we get here? You know, a war oftentimes
happens not by design; you stumble into it. That is what almost
happened here. We do not want a nuclear Iran. There is nobody in this
U.S. Senate who wants a nuclear Iran. Russia doesn't want a nuclear
Iran. China doesn't want a nuclear Iran. Our Presidents--bipartisan--
have worked hard to make certain that Iran didn't have it.
The Obama agreement was working. After President Trump was not
President Trump, he challenged the agreement. When he got elected, he
tore it up. But he saw at some point the wisdom of diplomacy, and he
was engaged in active negotiations about a nonnuclear Iran and was
making progress on those.
That was objected to by Prime Minister Netanyahu. He was against the
JCPOA that Obama was negotiating and actually, as a foreign leader,
came to this U.S. Congress and gave a speech in conflict with the
Commander in Chief of the United States wherein he lobbied in this
Capitol against entering into an agreement that ultimately made us more
secure.
That determination on his part continues, and the biggest act of
sabotage to the Trump negotiations as to a nuclear agreement was the
bombing campaign that Netanyahu did that sabotaged those talks.
Again, I say congratulations to our men and women in uniform who,
when they were ordered by the President to do the strike on the nuclear
facilities, did it and did it well, but we should not at all discount
how precarious that situation was for our country. It was the result of
a decision by Iran to turn the other cheek, to disregard the attacks
and basically not escalate. I am so glad they did, and the President
showed temperance there himself. But we can't be putting ourselves in a
position where our future and whether we do get in a war is based on
the actions of other people--particularly folks who run Iran.
So if we are going to protect the national security, if we are going
to protect the men and women of this country who will always respond to
the call of the Commander in Chief--that is what makes them such
wonderful patriots. They cede the authority to make the decision about
whether they will be put in harm's way to the men and women who serve
in the Congress of the United States and the Commander in Chief. That
is a profound responsibility that each of us has to debate the question
of whether we should commit this country to war.
So this resolution is absolutely vital--vital--to the well-being of
this country and to the humility that is required of a country before
it makes the ultimate decision to ask the men and women who are
citizens of our country to potentially sacrifice their lives for the
well-being of this country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kaine resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Constitution is clear: Congress, not the
President, has the authority to declare war. The Founders were
unanimous in proclaiming that the power to declare war belonged
exclusively to Congress.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said that the
executive branch was the branch most prone to war; therefore, the
Constitution, ``with studied care, vested that power in the
legislature.''
Madison would further state that ``in no part of the Constitution is
more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question
of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive
[branch].''
Hamilton, who didn't always agree with Madison or Jefferson, wrote
that ``the Legislature can alone declare war, can alone . . . transfer
the nation from a state of Peace to a state of War,'' and ``if the
Legislature have a right to make war on the one hand--it is on the
other [hand] the duty of the Executive to preserve Peace til war is
declared.''
Madison and Hamilton had very different visions of Executive power.
Yet they both agreed that it was vitally important to entrust the power
to declare war to Congress, not the executive branch.
George Washington remarked that ``the Constitution vests the power of
declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of
importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated
upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'' No offensive
expedition without congressional approval.
St. George Tucker, a Revolutionary War-era law professor, wrote in
1803 of how our Constitution diverged from the English tradition.
He wrote:

In England the right of making war is in the King. . . .
With us, the representatives of the people, have the right to
decide this important question.

It is without question that Congress neither deliberated nor
authorized the recent offensive military action against Iran.
Each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Deferring
the decision as to when, where, and why the country goes to war to any
President is a dereliction of duty on the part of Congress.
To commit America's military to fight wars on behalf of the Nation is
the most consequential and humbling responsibility that Congress is
entrusted with. If we are to ask our young men and women to fight and
potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster
the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted.
Washington's record of involvement in the Greater Middle East is
particularly abysmal, with dozens of campaigns costing thousands of
American lives and trillions of dollars. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and now Iran--all countries
in the region that the United States has bombed or is bombing. In each
case, the hawks in Washington were adamant that U.S. military
intervention would lead to a glorious future and great peace. Instead,
after tragically losing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars,
the United States is not in a better strategic position thanks to our
interventions.
After September 11, a generation of brave Americans answered the call
to

[[Page S3590]]

serve, many enduring multiple deployments in the region. Some 7,000
U.S. servicemembers paid the ultimate sacrifice in the War on Terror.
Tens of thousands more carry with them the scars of war: living with
missing limbs, shrapnel, nerve damage, brain injuries, burns, scars.
Some live with paralysis and are confined to wheelchairs. The mental
wounds of war are also present as we remember the more than 30,000
veterans who have committed suicide since Washington's misguided
project to remake the Middle East.
While our soldiers carry out their missions with honor, the
Washington establishment consistently fails them. In almost all cases,
our interventions were counterproductive, making us less safe and less
prosperous.
As the initial jubilation wears off from those who clamor for war,
the regional situation remains precarious, and American servicemembers
remain in danger. Many advocates for war, giving voice to their real
feelings, have loudly opposed the current cease-fire. Those arguing
against a cease-fire give a callous testimony, insensitive to the
cruelties of war.
Some 40,000 U.S. troops are scattered throughout the Middle East as
we speak--some on large, established bases, others on isolated
outposts. It is impossible to ensure all of these locations have
adequate air and missile defense capabilities.
Our troop presence in the region is therefore a significant
liability, allowing Iran and its proxies an opportunity to target
Americans, which they otherwise would not have. Yet the Washington
foreign policy establishment seems content to allow our servicemembers
to serve as sitting ducks. Should American soldiers get wounded or, God
forbid, killed in a retaliatory strike, the calls for war emanating
from Washington will surely be deafening.
History is replete with examples of leaders who, in their hubris,
thought they could shape the fate of nations, but we are subsequently
proven wrong as events ended up controlling them. Our own country,
sadly, experienced this during Vietnam.
The needless tragedy of that war in which 58,000 Americans paid the
ultimate sacrifice led Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution we
debate today. Congress intended to ensure a President would never again
unilaterally plunge the American people into war without the people's
representatives in Congress debating the issue. We owe it to all
Americans who have worn the uniform to honor that humbling
responsibility.
Moreover, despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end
up proving to be a strategic failure. It is unclear if this
intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations or, in fact,
whether the Iranians may well conclude to double down on their efforts
to obtain a nuclear weapon. At this time, it is unknown.
The lesson Tehran and other unsavory regimes around the world may
learn is that the only way to deter a strike is to maintain a nuclear
deterrent. Pandora's box has been opened, and the consequences remain
to be seen.
Congress must now focus its efforts on deescalation and preventing
the call for regime change, the consequences of which, if applied to
Iran, risk the total destabilization of the Middle East. The American
people are sick and tired of sending their children to fight and die in
war zones on the other side of the world with no tangible U.S.
interests at stake.
Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the
executive branch to unilaterally introduce U.S. troops into wars is an
affront to the Constitution and to the American people.
Today's vote offers every Member of this body an opportunity to stand
up for the Constitution, to stand up for American servicemembers, and
to stand up for America's strategic interests. I will vote in support
of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, in a 1793 letter to William Cabell, James
Madison said this:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found
than in the clause which confides the question of war or
peace to the legislature, and not to the executive
department.

A few years later, in another letter, this time to Thomas Jefferson
as part of their famous correspondence, Madison expounded on that very
simple superlative, naming the war powers clause in the Constitution as
the most important. He said:

The constitution supposes what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of
power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in
the Legislature.

Our Founding Fathers didn't get everything right. They didn't see
ahead of time that this Chamber would be divided in two: Republicans on
one side, Democrats on the other side. But they knew, having watched
the course of human history, that Executives--in their day, mostly all
Monarchs and Kings--had all sorts of reasons to drag their Nation into
war. Power often came from war, the funding that could be raised for
war, the loyalty commanded by war, the glory that occasionally came to
the leader, the ruler, through war and through conquest.
There was great risk in war, but there was also great reward in war.
And there was far too much of it in the era in which our Constitution
was being formed.
The purpose of the Founders was to give the American people a voice
in government--a revolutionary idea at the time--but it was also to
order our government in a way that war would become less likely, would
become less frequent. They imagined a world--this new America--in which
peace would be the rule, not war, as it was at the time for the
citizens of Europe who lived under the rule of Kings prone to war,
incentivized to war, as James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson.
So this part of the Constitution, with more wisdom in it than any
other part of the Constitution, according to James Madison, is this
section of our Founding document that says it is not up to the ruler;
it is not up to the executive branch; it is up to the branch of
government most connected to the people to decide whether we go to war;
to require that there be a debate, a conversation that involves
everyone in this Nation; that requires, that necessitates, a collective
decision as to whether to put the brave soldiers of this country and
the collective security of the Nation at risk.
So we are here today because we still find wisdom in that clause of
the Constitution. We still see great risk in moving into a world, which
we are quickly moving to, in which that clause that James Madison named
as the supreme clause of the Constitution, is a dead letter--is a dead
letter.
That is the risk because there are very few wars that are planned so
far in advance that there is time to come and have a monthlong debate.
Wars happen quickly, and they necessitate quick action, according to
the Constitution.
Yes, we have always accepted that there has to be an exception--but a
limited exception--to that supreme clause in the Constitution. If there
is an imminent attack against the United States, of course--of course--
the people of the United States want the ability of the President of
the United States to respond to that imminent attack. But in the
absence of an imminent attack, there is no exception. There is no
ability to go around Congress.
In the case of the hostilities against Iran that the President began
last weekend, there was no imminent threat against the United States.
There was no Army marching in this Nation. There was no nuclear bomb
that even existed that could be dropped on the United States or our
soldiers in the region.
So it was required--it is required under the Constitution--that the
President come to Congress. If the President doesn't need to come to
Congress to attack another Nation preemptively, preventively, absent an
imminent threat, then that provision of the Constitution is dead
letter. Period. Stop. And the most important piece of this document,
according to our most revered Founding Father, is no longer
operational.
And if we lurch into a world in which any Executive can send us to
war without the participation of the American people, then we are in a
world that our Founding Fathers could never have imagined.

[[Page S3591]]

So I am very glad to be on the floor today, as a big fan of the
wisdom of our Founders, to support Senator Kaine's resolution. I
appreciate his consistency in bringing this question before us.
I don't want to live in a world in which the greatest question that
this country could envision, whether or not we send our brave men and
women to fight on our behalf, is not a question that doesn't involve
the collective conversation of this body and of the people of this
Nation.
I think it is an important resolution to debate here, and I hope my
colleagues will support it.
It doesn't really have to do with whether you think there is wisdom
in this action or not, whether you think the President was right or
wrong; this is an opportunity for us to stand up for our responsibility
under the Constitution to be a coequal branch in setting foreign
policy.
I have my thoughts on the wisdom of this action. I have stated that I
think it is very dangerous when the President of the United States
deliberately misleads the country about the efficacy of our military
operations overseas or the threats presented to this country. It is
unforgiveable anytime a President doesn't tell the truth, but it is
especially unforgiveable when the President doesn't tell the truth
about national security intelligence.
I know my colleagues here come to different conclusions, but if the
reporting is correct that Iran, even after these strikes, still has
centrifuges and still has enriched uranium and still has scientists who
know how to put those things together, then it just is not true that
the program has been obliterated. That is a program that can be
reconstituted in a relatively short amount of time because, of course,
knowledge is not able to be destroyed by bombs.
The only way that you are going to make this country and this world
safe from Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions--and they have them--is
diplomacy. I hope that diplomacy got easier because of these strikes,
but I don't think they did. I don't think diplomacy got closer because
of these strikes and whatever follow-on strikes may come as President
Trump is currently threatening. So if diplomacy is the only path, if
you can't bomb out of existence knowledge, then I don't think this is a
very good week for American national security.
But I come to a different conclusion than many of my Republican
colleagues do, even some of my Democratic colleagues. But Senator
Kaine's resolution is so important because that is the debate that we
should be having. That is the argument that we should be having in
public.
That debate over the wisdom of dropping bombs in a far-off land that
could put our troops at risk, that could drag us into a war, that is
not a debate that the Founding Fathers thought should take place behind
closed doors at the Department of Defense, at the CIA, and the White
House. That is actually the debate that they thought that this body
should have--the U.S. Senate--that the House of Representatives should
have, and that is the chance that we have today: to bring that debate
out of the shadows, out of the secret, to the place where the Founding
Fathers thought it should exist.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kaine's
resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, President Trump's actions to address
Iran's nuclear weapons program last weekend didn't start a war; they
ended a war. So I rise today to support President Trump's wisdom and
leadership in decisively countering Iran's nuclear threat and,
therefore, to oppose this ill-conceived joint resolution.
As a U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to Japan, I understand and
respect the role that Congress plays in matters of war and peace, but I
cannot and I will not support a resolution that removes the ability of
the President of the United States to act decisively in defense of
national interests, our allies, and our Armed Forces.
This resolution, if passed, would send a dangerous message not just
to Iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime but also to every adversary who
is seeking to exploit our domestic debates and internal divisions. This
resolution would signal that America's resolve can be hamstrung by
congressional hesitation at the very moment when clarity, unity, and
strength are most needed.
I cannot state this strongly enough: President Trump acted entirely
within his constitutional authority under article II and in accordance
with his solemn duty to defend this Nation and to defend the American
people. Operation Midnight Hammer was a targeted, strategic, and
necessary use of force to eliminate immediate threats posed by the
Iranian regime and its proxies. No American lives were lost or injured
during this military operation, thanks to the leadership of President
Trump, the advice and counsel of Vice President JD Vance, National
Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, and the brilliant planning and
flawless execution of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.
For decades, the Iranian regime has been attacking U.S. personnel,
our allies, and our interests through its Revolutionary Guard, through
Hezbollah and Hamas and Houthi terrorists, and through its missile
programs and multiple cyber attacks. For decades, the Iranian regime
has cynically violated international agreements to overtly and covertly
pursue the capabilities necessary to make nuclear weapons on short
notice.
The idea that the President, in the face of escalating threats, can
only sit idly by until Congress can hold hearings and schedule votes is
not just naive; it is reckless. This War Powers Resolution ignores the
reality of modern warfare, and it would constrain the Commander in
Chief at the precise moment when decisiveness is most critical. It
elevates process over commonsense policy and political optics over
operational necessity.
If the President had been forced to act in accordance with this
resolution last week, the element of surprise would have been entirely
lost, and the successful mission flown by our brave airmen would have
been much different and, likely, much costlier.
Of course, Congress must be consulted. Of course, we can debate the
scope and strategy of our military engagements. But we must not shackle
our President in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line. We
must not embolden the Ayatollahs in Tehran by showing division and
delay because that is the path to endless wars, rather than the path to
decisive victories.
President Trump acted wisely and proportionately to protect American
lives. He acted to reestablish the credibility of our strategic
deterrence. And he acted after decades of Iranian aggression that went
largely unanswered by the previous administrations of President Joe
Biden and Barack Obama. President Trump, once again, demonstrated
decisive leadership in the service of peace and stability. That is the
actual job of the Commander in Chief.
Let me conclude by repeating what I said at the start. President
Trump's actions last weekend did not start a war. His actions ended a
war. And not a single American life was lost.
We should not be here debating how to constrain effective
Presidential leadership but, rather, discussing how to recognize
effective leadership and support it. For this reason, I urge my
colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 59.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the most significant responsibility and
heavy burden a President has is the determination of when to engage the
Armed Forces of our Nation. Such decisions can both cost and save
lives.
This past Saturday, President Trump directed our military to respond
to a growing threat that Iran could weaponize nuclear material and
deliver a nuclear weapon. With escalating tensions between our ally
Israel and our adversary Iran, the President made the decision to deter
and delay the capabilities Iran has to deliver a nuclear weapon. What
we know to date from our intelligence sources is that the President's
actions were significant and successful.
The U.S. Constitution splits the responsibility of the use of
military force between the legislative and executive branches. Having
received a classified and thorough briefing from our military,
intelligence, and diplomatic officials, I conclude that the President

[[Page S3592]]

acted within his constitutional authorities.

I welcome the return to a stricter constitutional balance of power
between the branches of government. Under the circumstances of the
recent actions of the President and the timing of the offering of the
resolution now before the Senate, we should not adopt the resolution,
which states, in part:

Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use
of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the
Islamic Republic of Iran . . . unless explicitly authorized
by a declaration of war.

With continuing threat from Iran against Israel, the dangers to
American military men and women in the region, and because of the
potential for terrorist acts upon U.S. interests within and without our
borders, I believe the President has the constitutional authority and
responsibility to defend the United States and its interests against
imminent threats. I appreciate the President's decisive action and
express gratitude and respect for the men and women of the military who
carried out his orders, and I support the President in his efforts to
find a peaceful resolution to hostilities in the region.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Senator
Sanders for up to 10 minutes, Senator Graham for up to 10 minutes,
Senator Risch for up to 10 minutes, Senator Kaine for up to 3 minutes,
and Senator Schumer for up to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, everyone knows that our country faces
enormous crises. We have a healthcare system that is broken and is
wildly expensive. We have a housing crisis in which millions of people
are spending far more than they can afford to put a roof over their
heads. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any
major country on Earth and a childcare system which is dysfunctional.
Millions of our kids cannot afford to go to college or are leaving
school deeply in debt, and over 20 percent of our seniors are trying to
get by on $15,000 a year or less. And oh, by the way, we have an
existential threat in climate change, which might very well make the
planet uninhabitable for future generations. These are just a few of
the crises that Congress and the President should be addressing.
In the midst of all of that, going to war against Iran and supporting
Israel's unprovoked attacks against that country is not something that
we should be doing. We do not need another unnecessary and costly war.
We have had enough of them.
In 1964, Congress voted, with little debate, for a Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution giving President Johnson the authority to escalate American
military involvement in Vietnam. As a result, the United States
expanded its presence in that country, and we were dragged fully into
Vietnam's civil war. Eventually, some 2.7 million Americans served in
Vietnam; and more than 58,000 died, and over 300,000 were wounded. The
Vietnam war devastated an entire generation; it killed millions of
Vietnamese; and it destabilized the region. It cost U.S. taxpayers
hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Vietnam war was based on a series of lies. Years later, the U.S.
Government concluded that the supposed attacks that prompted the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution did not happen as reported. The so-called domino
theory, the ideological foundation of that war, was bogus. That was a
war that never should have been fought.
In 2002, as a new Member of Congress, I can recall vividly how
politicians and the media relentlessly beat the drum about the need to
go to war against Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. Over and over
again, we were told that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction
and that if we did not act quickly, nuclear weapons would be falling on
America. Among those pushing for war in Iraq in 2002 were none other
than Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who testified to
Congress:

There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking . .
. nuclear weapons. If you take out . . . Saddam's regime, I
guarantee you that it will have enormous positive
reverberations.

That was Netanyahu in 2002.
The U.S. Congress, against my vote, invaded Iraq and became involved
in a brutal sectarian war that lasted for almost a decade. No weapons
of mass destruction were ever found. That war was based on a lie, a lie
that cost us 4,500 brave young Americans, 32,000 wounded, and $3
trillion in taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also
died.
War often has awful and unintended consequences. It should only be
considered as a last resort. We should not go to war against Iran.
First, let me state the obvious. Trump's attack against Iran is
unconstitutional. Congress, alone, has the authority to take this
country into war, not the President. Trump does not have that
authority.
Second, Iran did not pose an imminent military threat to the United
States that would justify a preemptive attack. Just a few months ago,
Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified
to Congress that the American intelligence community ``continues to
assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader
Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons programs he suspended
in 2003''--from Tulsi Gabbard.
Trump dismissed that finding, saying:

Well then, my intelligence community is wrong.

Really? On what basis does he think that the entire U.S. intelligence
community is wrong?
Third, diplomacy offers a better path to durably address Iran's
nuclear activities than a military attack. This was proven in 2015,
when the United States and world powers made an agreement that strictly
limited Iran's nuclear activities and put in place blanket inspections.
That agreement was working, but Trump pulled out of that deal in 2018,
and Iran restarted its activities.
To his credit, Trump returned to diplomacy this year, and U.S.
officials held five rounds of talks with Iran to address this issue. A
sixth round of talks was scheduled for June 15, but Israel derailed
those talks with a surprise attack and, in the process, assassinated
the Iranian official overseeing those negotiations.
Fourth, Binyamin Netanyahu should not be dictating U.S. foreign and
military policy. Trump's attack on Iran would not have occurred if
Israel had not launched an illegal, unprovoked, surprise attack on Iran
on June 13, sabotaging U.S. diplomatic efforts.
If the people of Israel support Netanyahu's decision to start a war
with Iran, that is their business. That is their war. The United States
should not be part of it.
Fifth, the United States should not be allied with the Netanyahu
government in any military effort. Netanyahu is a war criminal indicted
by the International Criminal Court for starving and killing civilians
in Gaza. His government is systematically destroying the Palestinian
people, killing over 55,000 and wounding nearly 130,000--two-thirds of
whom are women and children.
Israel has destroyed the entire physical infrastructure of Gaza--
housing, hospitals, schools, and water systems--and continues to
prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving civilians in
violation of U.S. and international law.
Sixth, this war is about more than Israel and Iran. It is about the
very concept of international law and preventing a world where every
dispute is settled with force. Whatever you think of the brutal,
authoritarian, and terrorist-supporting Iranian regime, Netanyahu's
surprise attack was a clear violation of international law and the U.N.
Charter.
The world appropriately condemned Russia for its unprovoked attack
against Ukraine. The world appropriately condemned Hamas for their
unprovoked terrorist attack against Israel. Israel should be condemned
for its unprovoked attack against Iran, and the United States should
not be part of that illegal action.
Finally, wars are expensive. We need funding to address the
healthcare crisis, the childcare crisis, the education crisis, and many
other crises our people face every day. We should be investing our
resources in improving life for

[[Page S3593]]

the American people, not wasting money on illegal and unnecessary wars.
Last year alone, the United States provided $22 billion in military
aid to Israel. Enough is enough. It is beyond absurd that we continue
to finance Israel's wars, while neglecting the needs of our own people.
Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I strongly support Senator
Kaine's War Powers Resolution to make clear that only Congress has the
power to declare war; that there is no legal basis for war with Iran;
and that the American people do not want more unnecessary costly wars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a debate worthy of the body, and I
would like to give my belief about what we are doing here--my opinion.
Senator Kaine has introduced a resolution that basically requires
President Trump to come to the Congress before any other military
actions can be taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I think that
would be a disaster for the country. You can only have one Commander in
Chief, not 535.
Mr. President, you have been in it. You have been right close to the
face of the enemy, and you, probably above all others, know what
warfare is like dealing with radical Islam, and I applaud your service
as a Navy SEAL.
So it says in the Constitution:

The President shall be [the] Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into actual Service of the United
States.

Well, they left out the Air Force because, back then, we didn't have
one.
Since the founding of this country, it has been understood that the
Commander in Chief can act as the Commander in Chief to protect our
Nation from threats; that he is in charge of the military. He sits atop
of the--he is the civilian in charge of the military, and it is his
decision to use military force.
It is Congress's decision to declare war. How many times do you think
we have declared war since the founding of our Nation?
I will give you the answer: Five.
Just think about all of the military conflicts that have existed in
the history of our country, and we have only declared war five times:
the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War
against Spain, World War I, and World War II.
So to my colleagues, if Congress has only declared war five times,
does that mean all of these other military operations are illegal? No.
That is ridiculous.
Because we have power to declare war--us, the Congress only--it
doesn't mean the Commander in Chief can't be Commander in Chief.
This country cannot be put in a legal state of war unless the
Congress decides to do that, but to suggest that means the Commander in
Chief can't do anything without our approval makes all of us Commanders
in Chief.
Do you think they had that in mind? Do you think they really meant
for the Congress to be the Commander in Chief, not the Commander in
Chief?
The logic of this is as follows: Because we have the ability to
declare war, therefore, the President can't act unless we agree. You
have taken his power to be Commander in Chief away.
The War Powers Act of 1973, referenced by Senator Sanders, is not
worth, in my view, the paper it was written on. It was an effort by the
Congress back then to limit President Nixon's involvement in the
Vietnam war.
The way you do that constitutionally is that Congress has the power
of the purse. If we don't like what a President is doing in terms of
military engagement, we can stop the funding for that engagement.
Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there
were not one Commander in Chief but 535, and we had to sit down and
talk among ourselves and debate as to whether or not we should go
forward with the military operation in question. That would paralyze
this country.
And this leak of the defense intelligence assessment tells you
exactly what would happen if they brought this problem over to us to
solve.
So it has been clear to me that only five times in the history of the
country have we declared war, and we have had hundreds of military
operations that the Founders never envisioned. The ability to declare
war means the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief,
cannot act unless we agree because that makes us the Commander in
Chief. And that is not what they were trying to do.
They were trying to make sure the country could not go into a legal
situation involving war without the body as a whole making that
decision. But when it comes to how to use the military, when to use the
military, we have a single person who does that. That is the Commander
in Chief, and that person can be limited by Congress's ability to cut
off funding for military operations they don't approve of.
So the War Powers Act, I think from its very founding, is
unconstitutional, but this is a case study of the chaos that would be
created if we accepted the proponents' version of this: that President
Trump would have to come to the Congress as a whole before he decided
to strike the next nuclear facility that maybe we don't know about, or
there is some imminent threat to our troops in the region.
That is just not practical, and that is not what the Founders meant.
They put a single person in charge of the military, and that was the
President of the United States. They made sure that going to war was a
group decision. And in this country, we have used that process five
times in 250 years.
So not only did President Trump have the constitutional authority to
engage in Operation Midnight Hammer; it was an incredible success.
If you look up ``obliterate'' in the dictionary, it means to destroy
utterly and wipe out. These three facilities were destroyed utterly,
and they were wiped out. They were obliterated.
Now that doesn't mean that the threat from Iran is over. The desire
of the regime still exists, and we will have to deal with Iran down the
road. But on this vote, I think, we all need to vote no because what we
are doing here, if we don't watch it, is having 535 Commanders in
Chief. That would paralyze this country.
But something, maybe, we can agree on very quickly: Since the attack,
the Iranian regime has gone on a terror campaign against their own
people. They have arrested at least 700 people for ties to Israel.
Dozens of people been hanged. They were basically drug out of their
houses and hanged.
``Iran turns to internal crackdown in wake of 12-day war.''
I will be doing a resolution condemning this regime's action. What
they are doing is they are trying to maintain power over their people
after this attack. People in Iran are getting fed up with the
Ayatollah. Instead of listening to the people and changing the behavior
of the regime, the regime is engaged in a terror campaign of
extrajudicial killings, imprisonment, and beatings to suppress the
people. And I think this body and the civilized world should condemn
what is going on in Iran right now.
As to negotiations to solve the Iranian nuclear ambitions, to try to
get a deal with Iran that we can all live with, count me in for that.
But you have got to remember, the people you are negotiating with, as
you talk to them, are killing their own people to try to keep them in
control.
I have got one idea. Before we negotiate with Iran, they need to say
one thing: We don't like Israel. We don't agree with Israel. But we
recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist.
The policy of the Iranian regime is to destroy the State of Israel,
purify Islam, and come after us, the infidels. Until they change that
policy, nothing is really going to work.
So what I want to hear, before we sit down and talk to the Ayatollah
and his henchmen, is that, for the first time ever since the founding
of the Iranian regime, they recognize Israel's right to exist. Is that
too much to ask?
Finally, this is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
Eighty years ago this past month, the Nazis surrendered. And one of the
hallmarks of the Nazi regime was to kill all the Jews. Eighty years
later, we are having a debate about a regime that wants a nuclear
weapon to kill all the Jews, and we are wondering what to do.
You know what we should do? We should make sure they can't kill all
the Jews. We should make sure that this homicidal maniac, the
Ayatollah, who is a religious Nazi, is not allowed

[[Page S3594]]

to get a nuclear weapon and reign havoc on the region and come after
us.
It is hard to believe that 80 years later, we would be having this
debate: What should we do?
To my good friend Senator Sanders, your solution will lead to World
War III. You will appease evil.
World War II happened because people like Senator Sanders did not
stand up to Hitler. They did not choose wisely, and they did not stop
him when they could. That is exactly what is going on now.
Until this religious Nazi regime gives up their desire to destroy the
State of Israel, to wreak havoc on the region, and to come after us,
chanting ``Death to America,'' then we should stand up to them. I am
not advocating invading Iran, but I am advocating being tough--no
sanctions relief and don't reward this behavior.
Vote no to Senator Kaine's proposal. Stand up for the Constitution as
it has been implemented for over 250 years. And all of us pray for the
Iranian people and for our friends in Israel that better days are
ahead. And these better days only come with sacrifice.
And as I speak, people in Iran are sacrificing because they just want
to live free.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. 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 India and Pakistan started fighting, he got involved, and he had
that shut 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 has 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 resolution is
not well-taken, and I am going to quote from the Executive Office of
the President their statement on the policy.

S.J. Res. 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 12, the International Atomic 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.
S.J. Res. 59 should be rejected also because it purports to
limit the President's article II 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.
S.J. Res. 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 is 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 is 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 in 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
United States or Donald Trump or any other President sought to declare
war on 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 have heard a lot on the floor today about how
important the Founding Fathers thought declaration of war was. They
were absolutely right. It is just as right today as it was then. There
is 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 is the press of a button, and it happens
instantaneously. That is 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 act against Iran.
Also, the Justice Department has opined to Republican and Democrat
Presidents and created the precedent as to when the President could use
power. This strike is in full compliance with that guidance. The
guidance is very simple. No. 1, if the President is going to take
action, it must, No. 1, be in the national interest and, No. 2, be
limited in nature, scope, and duration. And, of course, that is 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 constitutional statutes. Both open-source reporting
and the classified briefing we received demonstrated 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 advisers that President Trump has.
My colleague 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 and 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 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 is 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.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the remaining two speakers and Senator
Schumer have yielded their time to me. I will be the last speaker
before the vote.
My colleague from Idaho says this is driven by hate and vitriol
toward President Trump. He well knows that from my first months in the
Senate, I have taken this position, now, against four Presidents,
Democratic and Republicans.
The principles that have been stated on this floor about the
Constitution and War Powers Resolution are very,

[[Page S3595]]

very clear. Congress declares war. Once declared, the President is the
Commander in Chief. There is no war without a declaration of Congress.
The President, as Commander in Chief, can defend the United States
against imminent attack, but there was no such imminent threat posed by
the Iranian nuclear program, as the President's own National Security
Advisor testified to Congress shortly before this strike.
And as the Israeli Foreign Minister announced before the U.S. strike,
that the Israeli actions had set the nuclear program back 2 or 3 years.
No imminent attack on the United States, no imminent threat, that means
Congress gets to declare war.
This is not about hatred for any President; it is about standing up
and doing what we took an oath to do. My colleague from South Carolina
says we have only declared war five times, ending with World War II.
That is not accurate.
Congress has had the guts to at least vote on authorizing war up
through 2002. But in 2002 something happened in this body; the Senate
and the House got lied into a war with bogus intelligence about the
weapons program of the nation of Iraq. We should be haunted by that. We
should be haunted by that.
The claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction led us into a
war where thousands of troops and thousands of U.S. contractors were
killed. And so what should have been the learning that came out of that
is that we should do a good job kicking the tires, as Congress, before
we go into a war and not get lied into a war. Instead, what I fear,
since there has been no willingness of Congress to vote on any war
since 2002, is what Members of this body have decided is, Wow, we got
it wrong. We were lied into a war. We voted in a way that we regretted
so let's not vote at all. Let's not vote at all. Let's overturn the
congressional and constitutional history that says we only go to war
with Congress and try to hide in the grass.
Many of my colleagues have said things about Iran and how bad Iran
is. None of them have ever introduced an authorization for war against
Iran. If Iran is so bad, do that.
People in this body would rather not vote so they can't be held
accountable. I get that. That is a human impulse. It is just a human
impulse that so disrespects the service of our men and women in
uniform. If we are going to send troops into harm's way, our sons and
daughters, whether they are flying bombing missions or ground troops or
covert operations, we ought to have the guts in this body to cast a
vote saying that that war is necessary, not just act as cheerleaders
and hide from culpability, hide from accountability, hide from
responsibility.
If you vote against S.J. Res. 59, what you are saying is this
President should be able to wage war without coming to Congress. If you
think the President should have to come to Congress, whether you are
for or against the war in Iran, you will support S.J. Res. 59. You will
support the Constitution that has stood the test of time. You will
support your oath.
I urge a positive vote on the resolution.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion
to discharge S.J. Res. 59.
Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The majority leader.

____________________