Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 80 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2215-S2220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

War Powers Resolution

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this Chamber has before it a very
important question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its
constitutional responsibility to decide, as Madison put it, the
question of war?
That is a heavy responsibility. It is no small matter to decide
whether or not the United States should go to war or to decide whether
or not to end a war. It is a question of blood and treasure. The lives
of thousands can hang in the balance--the lives of soldiers on both
sides, the lives of civilians.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of more than
5,000 American servicemembers and the deaths of approximately 250,000
civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and they resulted in massive use of
American treasure, some $8 trillion.
It is tempting for Members of this Chamber to shirk this
responsibility. The question weighs too heavily on us. ``Let's let the
President decide.''
But if you took an oath to the Constitution, as every Member here
did, then you know that letting the President decide is
unconstitutional. The Constitution did not assign this weighty issue of
war to the President. It assigned this weighty issue to all of us here
in Congress.
As Madison summarized: 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. The Constitution has
accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the
legislative branch.
With studied care, the Founders said: No one person should decide the
question of whether we go to war. The weight of the decision in blood
and treasure is too great, so there needs to be debate. There needs to
be viewpoints exchanged before such a significant action is taken. And
that is why it is assigned to us.
Now the modern version of declaring war is to pass an authorization
for the use of military force, or an AUMF. That is the system set up in
the 1973 War Powers Act following Vietnam where there was no
authorization ever granted, and yet a massive calamity for American
servicemembers, some 50,000-plus who died and so many injured and so
much treasure expended.
So Congress by law with the signature of the President said: Let's
set up a system to take that constitutional provision where the
question of war is assigned to Congress and create a format through
which it can be considered. And that law--that 1973 law--says the power
of war can only be exercised under three possibilities.
One, there is a declaration of war. Second, Congress passes a law and
a President signs it into law to create an authorization for war.
And that, in fact, is what happened in the case of Afghanistan and
Iraq. The President came to Congress and said: Here are the arguments.
I want you to authorize war as required in the Constitution.
This Chamber and the House Chamber considered this question, and we
passed an AUMF, an authorization for use of military force.
Those wars were entered into under a constitutional path. And whether
or not any one individual agreed with the outcome, at least it was
constitutional in that it was the result of studied debate here in this
Chamber and down the Hall in the House of Representatives.
The War Powers Act creates a third option. Under a special
condition--sometimes it is referred to as ``the condition of imminent
threat,'' that we are under attack or on the verge of being under
attack. The specific language in the War Powers Act says that the power
of war can be exercised if there is a national emergency created by an
attack upon the United States, its territories, or its Armed Forces.
But it places a 60-day limit on that. Now many experts would say this
option was never triggered in this case because there was not a
national emergency created by an attack on the United States. But some
Members of this body have said: close enough. The threat from Iran was
close enough. We consider that a valid third option.
I would disagree, but others had a different opinion and then said:
but when that 60 days are up, that is exhausted and the President must
withdraw forces as required in the War Powers Act or must come to us
with an authorization for the use of military force, which has not
happened.
So if the President fails to withdraw forces and the President fails
to come to us with an authorization for the use of military force, then
it is incumbent on us to pass a War Powers Resolution that says: Mr.
President, you are in violation of the Constitution, and you must end
this war. If you want to continue it, come and ask for constitutional
authorization. The 60 days are up.
Someone said: Well, the war is not as fierce as it was previously.
There is kind of a paper version of a cease-fire in place, and maybe
that suspends the clock on the 60 days, a clock that expired on May 1.
But, you know, the War Powers Act does not have a provision that says
if the war becomes less fierce, it doesn't count against the 60 days.
That is not in the law. That is not in the vision under which this was
prepared and written for the exercise of our constitutional
responsibility.
And everybody in the world knows that the war has continued. The
Navy--our Navy--has continued a blockade of Iranian ports. That is an
act of war.
Our Navy has fired on Iranian naval vessels. That is an act of war.
Our Navy has fired on Iranian oil tankers. That is an act of war.
And Iran, they also have continued the war. They have fired on United
States naval ships, including the use of drones, missiles, and bullets;
fired on

[[Page S2216]]

commercial vessels; and fired on regional outposts, including the
United Arab Emirates.

So the war has continued, and the 60 days has expired. And during
those 60 days, a lot has happened; none of it benefitting our national
security. We strengthened the Iranian hardliners, virtually what always
happens when you assassinate religious and political leaders as we did.
We weakened the reformers. We failed to secure Iran's stockpile of
more highly enriched uranium, and we have no strategy to extract them.
We have shredded moral leadership as champions of human rights. We
enriched and emboldened Russia by easing oil sanctions; and not only
could Russia then sell their oil legally at a higher price, but the war
raised the value they could get from $60-ish to $120.
We depleted our munitions stockpile. We increased fertilizer costs.
We raised prices at the pump for American families.
People keep saying: In our State, it is $4 a gallon and diesel is $5
a gallon. Well, in Oregon, it is $5 for gasoline and $6 for diesel. And
we fueled inflation. Last month, April, the highest inflation in 3
years, 3.8 percent.
Those fuel costs are already affecting businesses. A number of
airlines have cut flights and cut services. Spirit Airlines went out of
business, forcing them to lay off 17,000 workers. And all across the
country, farmers and small businesses and large businesses are seeing
these inflationary effects and certainly American families are feeling
the higher prices on everything. And we have spent from our national
treasure somewhere around a $1 billion-plus a day.
During his campaign, our President said: I am going to end wars. I am
going to lower prices.
But he has started a war, and he has raised prices. And now, if one
embraces the War Powers Act, if one argues that there was an imminent
threat--which I do not believe that test was met. But if you believe
that test was met and you gave the President 60 days of grace--well,
those 60 days are up.
And since the President has not come to us and said, ``I now want an
authorization for war'' and we are not debating that on the floor, then
our responsibility is to exercise a War Powers Resolution that says:
Mr. President, end this war.
It is the right thing for us to do to defend the Constitution we took
an oath to. Failure to do so is to violate the Constitution we took an
oath to.
So I hope that at this point we will have bipartisan support to
embrace the responsibility that the Constitution assigns to us on the
question of war. It is a heavy responsibility. It is tempting to shirk
that responsibility and let the President decide, but it is neither the
moral thing to do nor is it constitutional.
Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not an option, not for
the President and not for us.
There is no constitutional path for the continuation of this war
unless the President arrives today with a proposal for an authorization
to be debated. And that has not happened. The only constitutional path
left is to vote aye on the War Powers Resolution.
An ``aye'' vote honors the wisdom of our Founders that assigned us
this responsibility and honors our responsibility under the
Constitution. A ``no'' vote dishonors the wisdom of the Founders who
assigned this responsibility to us and dishonors our obligation under
the Constitution.
Let's carry this weight, however heavy it may be, and in a bipartisan
fashion restore and honor considerations that place--the Constitution
places with us the question of war. An ``aye'' vote tomorrow is the
right vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to once again call on my
Republican colleagues to listen to their constituents and bring an end
to this war of choice.
Let's be clear. Americans do not like this war because they are the
ones paying for it. American taxpayers have already been forced to
shell out at least $29 billion for a conflict with no end in sight.
Hundreds of American servicemembers have been injured, and 13 Americans
have lost their lives. And Americans are paying the price for this war
at the gas pump every single day as the cost of just about everything
seems to be going up.
Today, we learned that inflation tripled in March, showing consumer
prices rose by nearly 4 percent. Make no mistake--that jump was almost
singlehandedly caused by Donald Trump's war in Iran, which has sent gas
prices skyrocketing 50 percent since he chose to start this conflict.
It is not just gas prices and travel costs going up for Wisconsin
families; the price of just about everything will increase as
transporting goods to markets continues to rise. These cost increases
are simply not manageable for many of my constituents and will force
them to make impossible decisions.
I am hearing from Wisconsin farmers who are paying through the nose
for the fertilizer and diesel they need to plant their crops this
spring. As of today, the average price for diesel in Wisconsin is $5.84
per gallon. That is $2.61 higher than 1 year ago. One Wisconsin farmer
told the local news that he is paying $2,000 more for diesel fuel this
planting season than in previous years. Fertilizer is also getting more
expensive because of Donald Trump's war. Fertilizer inputs shot up
nearly $700 per ton in late April--nearly $250 more than the day before
the war started. According to a recent survey, about 70 percent of
farmers nationwide say they were unable to afford all the fertilizer
they need for this planting season. For Wisconsin farmers who work on
very tight margins, these price increases could be make-or-break for
their businesses.
Donald Trump vowed to bring prices down on day one. Instead, he has
illegally started a war all on his own that is jacking up the cost of
just about everything.
On behalf of our constituents, who are paying the price for this war
of choice, I implore my Republican colleagues to do their job and end
this conflict. Every day this war drags on is another day that the
American people will be forced to pay for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am glad to be on the floor--sixth,
seventh, eighth week in a row; I have lost count--this week to support
Senator Merkley's resolution to end the war in Iran.
It is simple: This is a war that is making America less safe. It is a
war that is costing the people of this country billions of dollars. It
has resulted in untold numbers of civilian deaths in the region. The
entire world economy is spiraling out of control. Prices for gas are
through the roof--$6 a gallon in many parts of the country--and the
cost of everything is going to go up very quickly.
But in my short remarks today, I really want to take the
administration's war goals at face value and, 74 days into this
conflict, assess whether we are closer to meeting those goals or
further away.
Secretary Hegseth was before the Appropriations Committee today, and
we really got very little information from him as to whether this
essential question--the meeting of war goals--is answerable. Let me try
to answer it.
The first thing that the administration said they wanted to do was to
annihilate Iran's navy. Well, they have essentially destroyed Iran's
conventional navy, but they have not destroyed Iran's fleet of
speedboats and so-called suicide skiffs that effectively closed the
Strait of Hormuz, and it goes without saying that that feat is
impossible. The administration will never be able to eliminate all of
Iran's small speedboats that drop mines in the strait or threaten to
drop mines in the strait and these suicide skiffs, which run these
suicide missions at tankers and boats in the strait. So as long as that
fleet of small boats is able to harass traffic in the strait,
effectively close down the strait, you have not annihilated Iran's
navy, and you will never annihilate Iran's navy. So you can claim that
you sunk some big boats, but it is the small boats that have closed the
Strait of Hormuz and created a global catastrophe.
The second goal that the administration states is to destroy Iran's
ballistic missiles. Now, Trump recently claimed that Iran only has 18
to 19 percent of their ballistic missiles left, but according to public
reporting, a CIA assessment has found that Iran actually retains 70
percent of its missiles. So we

[[Page S2217]]

have expended tens of billions of dollars, we have dramatically
depleted our munitions stores, and Iran still has 70 percent of its
missiles. That same public reporting suggests that Iran is already
starting to dig out from the damage we did and rebuild some of the
launchers and the missiles that we damaged.
Similarly, another war aim was to destroy their drone fleet. The CIA
assessment says Iran still has 70 percent of its drones. Realistically,
drones are so easy to manufacture, there was never going to be a way
through an air campaign alone for us to be able to eliminate their
drone capacity. It is another reason the strait is closed.
There is no military mechanism available to the United States to open
the strait because we cannot find all of their small speedboats, we
cannot find all of their drones.
So 74 days of war and billions of dollars spent, over a dozen
Americans killed, and Iran still has their drone fleet.
The last goal--and the President has doubled down on this goal--is to
stop Iran from ever being able to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Now, we know for sure you can't actually achieve that goal through
military action--not without regime change, not without U.S. boots on
the ground. The administration has said we are not going for regime
change. They seem very comfortable with the new regime, which is, by
all accounts, more radical and more dangerous than the regime that they
displaced. While Trump still keeps open the possibility of putting
boots on the ground, as of today, it doesn't appear that there are
going to be hundreds of thousands of American troops going into Iran to
take their enriched uranium and their fissile material.
So the only way that you are going to effectuate this goal--stopping
Iran from being able to acquire a nuclear weapon--is by taking the same
path that we were pursuing under President Obama--a diplomatic path. So
the question then is just: Are you going to get a better diplomatic
deal today than you got when President Obama was in office? And all the
evidence suggests that you are going to get a much worse deal today
than you got when President Obama pursued this same path--for two
reasons.
First, Iran has much more leverage today. I heard Secretary Hegseth
say today in our hearing that America has all the leverage. That is
just made up because the facts on the ground are pretty simple.
In 2013, when President Obama was negotiating this deal with Iran,
their economy was crippled, but Iran didn't control the Strait of
Hormuz. Today, Iran's economy is crippled, but they control the Strait
of Hormuz. They have more leverage today than they had in 2013. In
2013, we certainly held open the specter of a military attack, but now
Iran has the leverage of knowing that it can survive the best punch
that America can throw. After 74 days into the war, the regime is still
standing. Their missile program still exists. Their drone program still
exists. Their nuclear program still exists. They control the Strait of
Hormuz. They have more leverage today than they did in 2013.
The second reason you are going to get a worse diplomatic deal is
that the stakes are lower for Iran because, once Trump pulled out of
the Obama agreement, Iran pressed fast-forward on their nuclear
research program.
Before the Obama nuclear agreement, Iran was enriching to 20 percent.
The nuclear agreement brought them down to 3 percent. Since Trump
pulled us out of that agreement, Iran has gone from enriching 3 percent
all the way up to 60 percent. And we all know that, once you are at 60
percent, it is really just a political decision to get to 90 percent,
which is what you need for a bomb.
So Iran now has the knowledge, in perpetuity, to be able to very
quickly get to enough nuclear material--enriched at a high enough
level--to be able to make a bomb.
Maybe, in this agreement, they agree to go back to 3 percent or maybe
they even agree to pause, for a period of time, enrichment. That is a
different calculation for Iran today than it was in 2013 because they
can easily make that agreement knowing that the minute they decide to
rush to a bomb, they can get there much faster now because of Trump's
decision to pull out of the agreement.
You are going to get a worse diplomatic deal under these
circumstances than you got in 2013.
So I just share that with all of you because, even if you take their
warnings at face value--and they seem to be changing by the week--they
haven't achieved a single one of them, and there is no hope of their
achieving those objectives even if they were to restart the war.
So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this if we can't achieve
any of our objectives and if the price of the war is being paid for by
American citizens and by American farmers?
I understand that the President is full of hubris and pride. I
understand my Republican colleagues, in having backed this war, are
having a hard time squaring reality with their stated position of
supporting the war.
But it is OK to change your mind. It is OK to look at the facts on
the ground, come to the conclusion that the war didn't go the way that
the President promised you it would go, and join us and vote to end
this war. I know that is difficult for any political figure who has
made it all the way to the U.S. Senate to admit that they were wrong.
But my Republican colleagues were wrong. Nobody can come to the floor
and make an argument that there is a path through the continuation of
this war to eliminate their ballistic missile program or their drone
program. I think it would be hard for folks to suggest that the longer
this war goes on, the better a diplomatic agreement we are going to
get.
So we are going to continue to come to the floor and ask for our
colleagues to join us because, out there in the American public, this
isn't much of a debate. People want this war to end. They cannot
sustain the costs of this war any longer. I appreciate the work of my
colleagues in continuing to bring these motions to the floor. This is
our one and only opportunity to debate war.
Our Republican colleagues--74 days into this war--have still not
brought a resolution before the Senate to authorize the war. That is in
violation of the Constitution. Every single day, we as a body are in
violation of the Constitution. So it is left to the Democrats to force
this debate on a weekly basis, which we will continue to do until this
war ends.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, today, I come to the floor, once again,
after numerous--and I have lost count of how many of these the
Democrats have tried--to set the legal record on the war powers
straight and in plain terms.
The first thing we need to do is look at what the Democrats are
trying to do here. They want to pass this resolution, which states in
relevant part:

Congress hereby directs the President to remove the United
States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran.

So what they are asking and telling the President to do is to remove
the U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran. Those
hostilities do not exist today and have not existed for some time.
So let's look at what has actually happened from a factual basis.
On February 28, the President exercised his constitutional duty to
protect American interests--not his right but his duty that he took an
oath to do to protect Americans and America's interests. Not only was
the military action he took legally permissible under article II of the
Constitution, but it was the President's duty to act.
Presidents across both parties, over many, many years--indeed, many
of my Democratic colleagues--have consistently maintained that Iran can
never have a nuclear weapon, and with good reason. Iran is a country
that is run by radical Shia clerics, whose slogan is, literally,
``Death to America.'' This regime has sponsored terrorism and has
kidnapped and killed thousands of American citizens since it commenced
this war against the United States 47 years ago.
We all remember when it happened. They took possession of our Embassy
in Iran, kidnapped the employees we had there, and held them for 400-
plus days. All the action we have taken since then has been defensive.
They

[[Page S2218]]

have continued offensive actions against us and, as I said, over the
years, have killed thousands of U.S. citizens.
The actions taken on February 28 comport with longstanding legal
precedent, over many decades, from the Presidents of both political
parties. The military operations we are talking about were not and are
not--nor are they even close to--operations that took place in Vietnam,
Afghanistan, or Iraq, nor will they ever be. My friends on the other
side of the aisle have tried to put the two together and compare this
to those actions. They are not.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is supposed to notify
Congress within 48 hours after introducing U.S. Armed Forces into
hostilities. He did that on March 2, as required, fully consistent with
the law.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber keep saying that,
somehow, the administration is not in compliance with a 60-day clock.
Let me highlight this point: The President's notification to this
body on May 1--within that 60-day period--was crystal clear: The
operations that began on February 28 had been terminated. The
hostilities ended with the April 7 cease-fire. They are over--full
stop.
Now, that doesn't say they won't start again. But that operation is
over and ended, and we were so notified. Indeed, President Trump's May
1 letter fully informed Congress as to the status of this matter. The
War Powers Resolution does not require such reporting. Nonetheless, the
President gave it.
In short, this is much more information than previous Presidents have
provided to Congress.
For the reasons that I have just stated, I intend to vote against
this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho made a few points
in his presentation on why he would oppose exercising the War Powers
Resolution, and I think it is worth noting those points and considering
whether or not they hold water.
First, he said hostilities have ceased because the President says so,
but it is the facts on the ground that matter, and the fact on the
ground is that the United States continues a blockade--an act of war--
against Iranian forces. We have fired upon Iranian ships, and we have
fired upon Iranian tankers. Iran maintains a blockade of the Strait of
Hormuz, which is an act of war, and they have fired on U.S. Naval
vessels, and they have fired upon U.S. commercial ships, tankers. So it
may be at a lower level than the massive bombing that occurred before,
but there certainly is nothing close to what we would call a cease-fire
and certainly not a withdrawal.
Now, the War Powers Act says that after 60 days, you have to end the
hostilities, and you can ask for another 30 days to withdraw forces.
Well, we are in that 30-day period now, and the forces are not being
withdrawn from the Middle East.
The second factor is my colleague cited article II of the
Constitution. What did he mean by that? He referred to the ``Commander
in Chief.'' Article II of the Constitution says this in section 2:

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

When called into service.
And what does the Constitution say about when it is called into
service? Well, that is in article I--article I, the powers of Congress,
the enumerated powers of Congress, and those enumerated powers laid out
in section 8 refer to many of the assignments given, including things
like borrowing money on credit or regulating commerce or coining money
or providing for the punishment of individuals, establishing a post
office. But the key one--this very sizeable responsibility that Madison
said ``with studied care'' the Founders vested this responsibility in
the legislative branch, not the executive--that is the power to declare
war. That is the responsibility.
Yes, once we go to war, the Commander in Chief is the President of
the United States, and much of the strategy of the war is conducted
accordingly through the Department of Defense and the Secretary of
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of the services. But do not confuse the
ability to conduct a war with the ability to start a war.
Third, nuclear weapons. My colleague mentioned the threat of nuclear
weapons. Well, there is a threat of nuclear weapons maybe, but you have
to really kind of understand the framework here, and that is that there
was a diplomatic agreement in which Iran enriched to only very low
levels, a couple percent, under international intensive supervision
with all kinds of monitors in place--not just individuals watching but
all kinds of sensors in place. Their enriched uranium that they had
previous to that agreement called the JCPOA was stored in Russia. So
they didn't have highly enriched uranium. They enriched to very low
levels, and they did it under international supervision.
It was only after President Trump in his first administration tore up
this agreement and unleashed Iran from its responsibilities under that
agreement. That is when Iran later said ``Well, we might enrich to
higher levels'' and then proceeded to--up to 60 percent. But that
condition only exists because of what President Trump did to tear up
the diplomatic agreement.
Then, in June of last year, the United States participated in a
massive bombing campaign, employed our very largest bombs to destroy
those places where centrifuges were making the more highly enriched
uranium. The President proudly declared that the massive bombs--the
largest ones we have, the earth-penetrating bombs, the biggest
tonnage--had obliterated Iran's nuclear program.
So Iran didn't have a nuclear program en route to a nuclear weapon
until Trump tore up the agreement, and even then, the President claimed
there was no nuclear program after June of 2025.
So here we are. What had been achieved diplomatically was destroyed
by President Trump. Now he proceeded to say that he had already taken
care of this threat that is being cited by my colleague as a
justification for this war.
By the way, it was not the justification that President Trump cited
at the beginning of this war. No. He said: Israel is going to bomb Iran
again, and Iran is going to retaliate against regional sites, and that
will involve our interests being hit, so we should join Israel.
So Israel was the dog wagging the American tail. Does America not
have the spine, the courage, the authority to simply have told Israel
no? Well, apparently not--not under this President.
I yield to my colleague from Virginia who has been so instrumental in
bringing many, many insights to this debate and helping coordinate this
series of War Powers Resolutions as we strive--strive--to honor the
oaths we took to our Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague and strongly
support his resolution that will be voted on tomorrow, and I have taken
the floor often on this topic and don't need to repeat things I have
said before. But today, I guess what I want to say is basically this:
The American public does not like being lied to by its government. Of
course we don't but particularly on matters of war.
I am old enough to remember two tragic circumstances where the
American public was lied to by their civilian leadership about war--
many lies were told by successive administrations, beginning with the
Eisenhower administration and through Kennedy and Johnson in
particular, about the Vietnam war--and how tragic it was when Americans
realized that much of what they had been told that led, first, the
United States to take over the French colonial project in Southeast
Asia and then to engage in war--much of what they had been told was
false.
When you are losing your sons and daughters--56,000 U.S. deaths in
the Vietnam war--and then you find that the civilian leadership has
been lying to you while troops have been serving honorably, it is
incredibly embittering in a State like Virginia where there are so many
military equities but to every State.
We were lied to about the war in Iraq. We were told that Iraq had
something to do with 9/11. That was not

[[Page S2219]]

true. We were told that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and had
weapons of mass destruction they would use against the United States.
That was not true. But those were put on the table before a vote in
Congress to engage in a war that most now agree 25 years later was a
massive, massive mistake.
So I come from a State that lost a lot of people in Iraq and
Afghanistan and Vietnam, and I join my colleague today to support his
resolution because I believe the United States is not being told the
truth about the situation in Iran.
First, the administration worked very, very hard up until essentially
a week or so ago to avoid any public hearings about the war in either
the House or the Senate, in the committees that have jurisdiction over
important matters. I mean, not to have a public hearing about a war?
Right now--and I am going to go into this in an Armed Services
Committee hearing later in the week--the administration is not even
willing to share the legal rationale, the opinion developed by the
Office of Legal Counsel at the State Department. They are not even
willing to share that rationale with Members of the U.S. Senate. They
won't share it with members of the Intel Committee. They won't share it
with members of the Armed Services Committee. They won't share it with
members of the Foreign Relations Committee. They won't even share the
legal rationale. What are they afraid of? That raises some natural
suspicion.
In at least two instances, I believe the administration is not being
truthful with the American public about this war. One was the assertion
of a whole different series of rationales, but one of the rationales
that seems to now be the one that they rely on is, well, of course the
war is needed to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. No, it isn't.
We had stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon by a diplomatic deal
that Donald Trump chose to tear up, as my colleague just mentioned.
That had stopped Iran's nuclear program.

That deal was a comprehensive deal that took months, even years, to
negotiate. It contained some provisions that were time-limited--5
years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years--but it contained two provisions
that were permanent. The first was on page 1 of the deal: that Iran
will not seek to purchase or acquire or develop nuclear weapons. That
was a permanent pledge by Iran. The second part of the deal that was
permanent was Iran agreed to permanent inspections by the IAEA,
including inspections according to an additional protocol that had been
developed by the nations of the world after North Korea had cheated on
a nuclear program earlier.
Those were permanent pledges by Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons
and to allow intrusive inspections, and President Trump decided, over
the objection of his Secretaries of State and Defense, to tear up the
deal. So when President Trump says now: Well, we have to wage war; we
have to subject our troops to being killed and being injured and
billions of dollars of costs and Americans and people all over the
world paying more for gas to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon--
that is a lie. Diplomacy had stopped them until President Trump tore it
up.
To make matters worse, President Trump, with the United States,
following a 12-day war of Israel against Iran to destroy their nuclear
capacity, took additional action that the White House said had
destroyed Iran's nuclear program.
So if we had controlled it first by diplomacy and then a year ago
added on a war waged by Israel against Iran to obliterate the nuclear
program, there was not a nuclear program that justified this war. There
was no threat of any action anytime soon by Iran to develop nuclear
weapons that justified this war.
I don't like to use this phrase. I don't use this phrase a lot: The
White House has lied to the American public, and every time they say
this war is justified to stop Iran's nuclear program, they are telling
the American public a lie.
The second lie they are telling--and I will just say this and then
hand it back to my colleague--is a different kind of a lie. If you
state a set of facts that are true but you don't state the full set of
facts, you are telling a lie. And I have heard President Trump and I
have heard Secretary Hegseth say many times: We need to stop Iran
because they have been a thorn in our side since 1979. They have been a
thorn in our side for the last 47 years.
Our decision makers are acting as if the U.S.-Iran history started in
1979 when the Iranian people toppled their government and then, yes, in
the aftermath of that toppling, started to say ``Death to America,''
``Death to Israel.'' They act like that is the only history. My
colleagues will recount Iranian misbehavior--taking over our Embassy,
in violation of international law; funding proxies to attack the U.S.
Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut and other locations; funding
proxies that attack U.S. troops who are in the region in or near Iran--
my colleagues will cite that information, and they will cite it
accurately. And Iran has done a series of horrible things to their own
people, to American positions, to other nations in the region. But my
colleagues always ignore, the President always ignores, and Secretary
Hegseth always ignores that history didn't start in 1979.
If you want to understand the history of this relationship between
the United States and Iran, you have to go back to World War II when we
were allies. There was a pivotal conference in the middle of World War
II in Tehran in 1943 where the allies--the United States, the Soviet
Union at the time, and Britain--guaranteed to Iran its sovereignty and
its independence and its borders, and the Iranian people loved the
United States, and we were allies.
Then in 1953, during the Eisenhower administration, the United States
made a catastrophic mistake. There is a recent book by Scott Anderson
called ``King of Kings'' that lays this out in clear and unmistakable
detail. The United States decided we would topple the democratic
Government of Iran. In 1953, the United States, through the CIA,
engineered a coup. We toppled the democratic government. We installed
the Shah, a dictator. We funded the secret police of the Shah, who
tortured, exiled, imprisoned, and killed thousands of Iranians. And the
United States basically put this puppet government--a dictator--over
the Iranian people from 1953 until they finally tired of it, and they
cast that government off in 1979.
Guess what. Twenty-six years of the United States funding a
dictatorship killing and torturing Iranians led the new Government of
Iran to be--drumroll--anti-United States. We turned Iranians from
friends into enemies. We didn't have to do that, but we did it.
Secretary Hegseth and the President never mention that. They don't
mention that after Iran overtook our Embassy, we funded Iraq to wage
war on Iran. We gave Iraq funds. We gave Iraq intel. And in a 7- or 8-
year war, Iraq--we funded Saddam Hussein to wage war against Iran.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed, and they knew the United
States was partially responsible for it.
In the late 1980s, a U.S. Navy vessel, the Vincennes, shot down an
Iranian commercial aircraft, killing 290 civilians. It took us years to
admit that we did it, but we eventually admitted that.
The United States invaded Iran's next-door neighbors to the east and
west to topple their governments--Afghanistan and Iraq--and Iran
believed: Well, you toppled our government in 1953. You are probably
preparing to do it again.
In this recent war on Iran, we have wiped out their leadership, we
have killed civilians, and we bombed a school, killing schoolgirls.
Now, we all know that the United States does not intentionally decide
to target schools. That is not what we do intentionally. But to an
Iranian who watched the United States intentionally topple their
government in 1953, intentionally participate in an assassination
campaign against their leaders, shoot down a civilian aircraft in the
late 1980s, intentionally fund Iraq to wage war against Iran--an
Iranian will look at U.S. actions and say: Wait a minute. This is part
of a pattern. We were friends until you decided to topple our
government in 1953.
The point I am making about this is that if you are not willing to be
honest about the history and acknowledge not

[[Page S2220]]

only Iranian misbehavior--which continues to this day. They just
executed somebody in Iran--a student--in a gross violation of human
rights. So you have to acknowledge that the Iranian regime has
conducted all kinds of bad activities. But if you are not willing to
acknowledge the role the United States has played in turning this
nation that was a nation of allies into enemies, then you are going to
get the policy wrong. You will get the policy wrong if you don't
acknowledge the truth.
What is that truth? as I finish. The truth is, if more war between
the United States and Iran would bring a solution to any of these
problems, then we would have found the answer at some point between
1953 and now. We have had a back-and-forth going between the United
States and Iran since 1953, and it has not produced peace, it has not
produced stability, and it has not produced anything for the good of
the Iranian people or the American people, frankly. For us to think now
that, you know what, more war, just a little more war would be the
right thing to do to bring a better resolution to this painful 75-year
chapter--it shows a profound ignorance of our history and a just
shocking level of naivety.
So that is why I have joined with my colleagues every week to look
this Senate in the eye and say: As a deliberative body with
constitutional powers and an oath that we have taken to provide a check
against an Executive--particularly on matters of war--we can't let this
go under the radar screen, classified hearings only. We have to be as
loud and consistent as can be to say that more war between the United
States and Iran is not an answer to anything. It hasn't been an answer
to anything since 1953, and it is not an answer to anything now. That
is why I support this resolution.
We should not be at war without a vote of Congress. Even if there
were such a vote--I would vote against it, but if it were to pass this
body and be signed by the President, I would then drop my complaint
that the war is illegal. I would say it is unwise, but I would be
outvoted, as I am often on events, and thus it wouldn't be illegal.
It is an illegal war. It is an unwise war that demonstrates a
profound lack of understanding of the deep, tragic history between the
United States and Iran. And for that, to my colleague from Oregon, I
strongly support your resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.