[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2158-S2159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here to speak this afternoon about 
the conflict involving Iran and more specifically, the role of Congress 
within it.
  At the outset, I want to reiterate something that I think gets lost 
in these discussions. The fact of the matter is, the Iranian regime is 
not an abstract adversary of America or anyone who supports free people 
and a more peaceful world.
  For 47 years, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has brutalized their 
own people in the name of preserving the power of their Supreme Leader. 
Protestors and dissenters are met with violence, imprisoned, and 
murdered in cold blood.
  At the same time, that same regime, through its proxies and networks, 
has killed thousands of Americans over the years. They have empowered 
groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shia militias in Iraq to orchestrate 
significant attacks that have destabilized the region.
  There is no doubt that the Iranian people would be better without the 
Islamic Republic of Iran. There is no doubt that the world would be a 
safer place without the regime spreading terror around the world.
  We now find our Nation at war with Iran, and I am not here to 
relitigate how we got into this conflict. The fact of the matter is, we 
are in it. But we owe it to our servicemembers and the Americans who 
are feeling the economic impacts of this war--we owe

[[Page S2159]]

them a clear, thoughtful, rational plan for what comes next.
  Some 2 months later, the regime retains the ability to strike across 
the region. They continue to disrupt shipping through the Strait of 
Hormuz. And while the administration may point to ongoing negotiations, 
events on the ground and the rhetoric coming out of Tehran tell a 
different story.
  If the United States steps back abruptly and prematurely, we almost 
certainly leave their critical capabilities intact, we risk a new set 
of leaders who are even more radicalized against us, and we all but 
invite retaliation against American military forces, our allies, and 
the American people.
  Those are not risks I am willing to take. But the answer is not a 
blank check for another endless war, nor is it open-ended authority for 
the administration, with no guardrails, no oversight from Congress, and 
no clearly defined mission. The answer, I believe, relies on careful, 
deliberate use of congressional power. And this is where I think we are 
falling short, because we are approaching the 60-day mark under the War 
Powers Act.
  So what comes next?
  The Constitution is clear on this point: Congress holds the power to 
declare war and authorize the use of military force. And yes, the 
President must have flexibility to respond to emergencies and imminent 
threats, and he does. And he does. But those are not ongoing military 
campaigns like we find ourselves currently mired in.
  In such conflicts, the President and the administration must 
explicitly state their goals, their plans, and the metrics for success, 
and if we don't press them to define those parameters, we may risk 
repeating history.
  One of the clearest lessons from the War on Terror is that the 
failure to think beyond the initial phase of military operations can 
lock us into a conflict that becomes more lengthy, more deadly, more 
costly, and more difficult to unwind, which brings me to a concern I 
have had from the outset of this conflict, and that is the lack of 
clarity from the administration, from their public statements to the 
classified briefings we receive as Members of Congress.
  When American servicemembers are deployed and lives are on the line, 
the administration owes Congress and the American people a straight 
answer about what we are trying to achieve. That is why I have been 
working with several of my colleagues on an authorization for the use 
of military force.
  This is an authorization, but it is also a restraint. It is not a 
blank check. It would not grant open-ended authority. Instead, it would 
seek to establish a framework requiring the President to come to 
Congress with clearly defined political and military objectives. It 
would require metrics for success, notice of any changes in objectives, 
and exit criteria. It would ultimately ensure that Congress is engaged.
  AUMFs should precede wars, not be enacted in their midst.
  That wasn't a choice for us here, but it cannot be used as an excuse 
to abandon our responsibilities. We are supposed to represent, engage, 
debate, vote, and when and where necessary, restrain the Executive. 
That is why we are supposed to be here in Congress, and that matters 
most in times of war.
  We have already lost servicemembers in the conflict--and God rest 
their souls--and there is still danger, and more servicemembers will 
almost certainly be put in harm's way even during an economic blockade.
  Now, I think there is a fair and legitimate question that some may be 
asking. We are looking at an AUMF. We just had a vote on a War Powers 
Resolution. Actually, we have had several votes on War Powers 
Resolution, and I have opposed each of them, including the one that we 
just took today.
  So why AUMF and not a War Powers Resolution? The War Powers 
Resolution we have voted on would have required the removal of U.S. 
forces from active hostilities. They would have halted operations that 
were already underway without any framework for what comes next, and 
that is just something I can't support.
  Iran has been targeting United States personnel, our allies, and our 
partners across the region. I don't believe that we can responsibly tie 
the hands of our military or walk away in the middle of an ongoing 
fight without a plan.
  We saw in Afghanistan in 2021 the dangers of withdrawing without a 
strategy. The President should have come to Congress before engaging in 
military action at this scale that we are seeing now, and that, 
regrettably, did not happen. So we are now in a position where Congress 
must step in--not to abruptly end operations but to define them. And 
that is the difference here.
  The War Powers Resolution has attempted to stop this conflict without 
establishing a path forward. An AUMF recognizes the reality that the 
U.S. military is already engaged and provides structure and clarity by 
requiring the administration to define what they are trying to achieve 
and the means of achieving it. It requires reporting to Congress, and 
it brings transparency where little has existed over the past 2 months.
  Now, I am not introducing an AUMF today, but if we pass this 60-day 
mark from the start of hostilities with still a lack of a credible plan 
and information from the administration, it is something that I intend 
to introduce once the Senate reconvenes here.
  So I want to close by saying as plainly as I can: I stand firmly 
behind our troops. As part of that, I do not take their deployment 
lightly, and I do not accept that we should engage in open-ended 
military action without clear direction or accountability.
  Congress has a role. Congress has to step up and fulfill that role, 
that obligation that the Constitution assigns to us. We owe it to the 
men and women who are serving our great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________