[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 23, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3033-S3034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious 
topic, one that I have often addressed on the floor of the Senate 
during my 13-plus years here but that I have particularly been focused 
on since President Trump decided to launch a war against Iran on 
February 28 of this year. And the issue is whether we should ever be at 
war without a vote of Congress.
  The consequences of the war that President Trump started are pretty 
well known to the American public. We have now spent in excess of $50 
billion of United States taxpayer money on the war, with the need to 
spend more to replenish munition stockpiles and repair infrastructure 
that has been damaged by Iran--United States infrastructure in the 
nations near that country.
  More important than the dollars we have lost are the lives that have 
been lost--13 U.S. troops including a Virginian, CW3 Robert Marzan, 
have lost their lives in this war, and thousands of Iranian civilians 
have been killed.
  The damage has not just been to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers and 
to our troops and Iranian civilians; it has also been to everyday 
American families. Because of the instability of the war, the Strait of 
Hormuz was closed, as all predicted it might be if President Trump 
launched this war; and that has led to escalating fuel prices. The 
estimates are that Americans have paid already $50 billion more for 
fuel since February 28 than they would have if President Trump had not 
started this war.
  I could go on about the consequences, now being 110 days or so into 
this war, but I don't think I need to because I think the American 
public understands them very well.
  But I am here today to rise again, as I have beginning within the 
first few days of the war--essentially every week--to ask my colleagues 
to do what the Constitution says we should do and direct the President 
to cease hostilities against Iran until--until--Congress authorizes a 
war.
  The most solemn power, in my view, in article I of the Constitution--
the most solemn power for Congress is Congress has the power to declare 
war, not the President. That was done very deliberately as the 
Constitution was drawn up in 1787 in Philadelphia because the delegates 
to the Constitutional Convention believed, even with someone as 
talented as George Washington ready to assume the Presidency of the 
United States, that the stakes and consequences of war were so vast 
that a decision about war should never be in the hands of a single 
person but, instead, should be vested in the legislative branch so that 
a decision about sending our best and brightest, our kids, into war--
and the Presiding Officer knows more about the real costs of war than 
virtually anybody in this Chamber--that before we send our best and 
brightest into war, it should be based upon a very careful and 
deliberate debate, in full view of the American public so they can 
understand the stakes, and then war can be initiated once Congress has 
decided this is in the national interest.
  Congress has not done this with respect to the war in Iran, and that 
is not unusual. Congress has often abdicated this responsibility over 
the years. But we take an oath to a Constitution that brooks no end-
running on this, that Congress has to own this responsibility. And so I 
rise again today for the 10th or 11th time--we have tried to have this 
vote virtually every week--on the floor of the Senate to say no war in 
Iran unless Congress, by vote, approves it.
  In the earlier votes we have had, we have been voting on Senate 
resolutions, and most of the resolutions have failed, although they 
have failed narrowly. There was one positive vote on a resolution that 
I put forward, and it was a motion to discharge that resolution from 
committee that actually passed the Senate by a 50-to-47 vote. There 
were some absences that day, but it did pass. And so my resolution is 
still pending on the floor, but that is not the resolution we are going 
to be voting on today.
  After lunch, I will ask to be pulled up a House concurrent 
resolution. The Republican-majority House has passed a resolution 
saying: Mr. President, no war in Iran without a vote of Congress. And 
this afternoon I will not be pulling up a Senate resolution, which, if 
successful, would have to go to the House. Instead, I am pulling up the 
concurrent resolution that the House has already acted upon.
  Why is this vote different than the earlier ones we have had? Well, I 
have already explained procedurally it is a bit different because we 
are taking up the House concurrent resolution, but that may not 
necessarily be a difference maker as people try to decide how to vote.
  Let me talk about why this vote is different than the earlier votes 
in terms of the merits of the case--the merits of saying right now to 
the President: No more war without a vote of Congress.
  The first difference is, with each day, the consequences of the war 
become more apparent. We are acting with more knowledge. Even since the 
vote we had last week, we now have the administration has come to us 
with a supplemental request asking for $80 billion more, largely 
necessitated by the consequences of the war: to replenish munitions 
stockpiles and take other actions that wouldn't fully repair damages, 
for example, that the Pentagon has incurred but would start to.
  So we have some more information than last week.
  The second thing we have is, I think we have more information about 
where Members of this body are. Many of us believe the war was foolish 
and illegal and never should have been started. Many of us believe the 
memorandum of understanding that was revealed last week is 
insufficient. Many of us believe both of those things are true.
  In fact, I have been trying to monitor the comments of my Senate 
colleagues, and I would venture to say that about two-thirds of the 
Senators--maybe even higher now--have either expressed

[[Page S3034]]

their belief that the war should never have been waged or their belief 
that the MOU is inadequate.
  And so now we know a little bit more about where this body is, and 
that is also based upon each day brings more information. The terms of 
the MOU weren't completely available and hadn't been scrutinized the 
last time we had this vote.
  But the most important thing, I think, that is different about this 
vote than some of the earlier votes is, thank God, we are in a cease-
fire--a fragile one, a fragile one. And the cease-fire is a bit of an 
intermission where we get to step back--and we should step back--as 
Congress is engaged on the question of what is the next step.
  This effort to cease hostilities is not coming in the midst of active 
back-and-fire kinetic action between the United States and Iran or 
Iranian allies. It is a fragile cease-fire, and it is interrupted. But 
we have stepped back from the most active phase of the war. That is a 
perfect time for Congress to step back and ask ourselves the question 
of what should the next chapter be, rather than allowing one man to 
make that decision.
  In fact, it is interesting. I was thinking about this as I walked 
over this morning: What are the options right now? The options are 
either a negotiated peace deal or potentially returning to war.
  If the Trump administration negotiates a deal that includes anything 
about the Iran nuclear program, they have to bring it to Congress 
pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Review Act that I helped coauthor about 10 
years ago.
  So in the event of diplomacy, the administration must come to 
Congress. If the administration wants more money for the war, they must 
come to Congress. They sent over a supplemental request last week. So 
if the administration has to come to Congress and engage us if 
diplomacy is the chapter, if they have to come to Congress and engage 
us if more dollars are needed, we shouldn't say: But you don't have to 
come to us if you just want to restart the war.
  How odd would it be that they would need our permission for diplomacy 
and need our permission for dollars but not need our permission to 
start bombing again? I think that odd disharmony, that cognitive 
dissonance, demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers giving the power to 
declare war to Congress.
  If you have to come to us for diplomacy and you have to come to us 
for money, you shouldn't be able to end-run us to initiate war on our 
own.
  And so, after lunch, I will make the motion to pull up this House 
concurrent resolution. I am unaware of an earlier instance of this 
being done, but it is in accord with Senate procedure to pull up a 
House concurrent resolution and seek a vote on it.
  And it is my hope that with the experience of these 100-plus days and 
the knowledge of the consequences and the magnitude of these issues to 
American families, Congress will stand and deliver on the oath we have 
taken that the Nation should not be at war unless Congress authorizes 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________