May 16, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 82 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in Senate sectionPrev20 of 94Next
Iran (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 82
(Senate - May 16, 2019)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S2900-S2901] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Iran Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate's failure to meet its constitutional obligation and conduct effective oversight of what seems to me and many others to be this administration's inexorable march toward war with Iran. This week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is making plans to deploy 120,000 American troops to the Middle East in anticipation of a confrontation with Iran. It is no secret that some of the President's closest advisers are focused on regime change and possibly military engagement with Iran. I was encouraged by a story in the Washington Post that was posted last night. The headline of that story read as follows: ``Trump, frustrated by advisers, is not convinced the time is right to attack Iran.'' That was the headline in the version of the story reported by four Washington Post reporters. In pertinent part, the story indicated that the President thinks his advisers ``could rush the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran.'' Then it goes on to further state that ``Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions.'' I am encouraged by that, but we have to be vigilant when it comes to this issue and the broader issue of the use of force. The plans that I mentioned before referred to by the New York Times apparently were submitted by Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan. These are [[Page S2901]] the most recent in a string of actions this administration has taken, from withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, to designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps--the so-called IRGC--as a foreign terrorist organization, to suspending waivers that allow partner countries to continue importing Iranian oil. I have a long record of working to fight against Iranian aggression. We all know--and we have said it often, and we should say it again-- Iran is and has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism. For years, many of us, in a bipartisan way, have led efforts to confront Iran, to sanction Iran, to hold Iran accountable for its malign activity and actions in the Middle East and its actions to support terrorist organizations, whether it is Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization. We will continue that regardless of this debate. But when the New York Times talked about that military plan, they referred to a prior engagement, a prior military conflict--the conflict in Iraq. ``Echoes of Iraq War'' was what the Times said. These ``echoes'' trigger memories and reflections of a misguided period of this body's history in which Congress approved a U.S. invasion of Iraq based upon faulty intelligence. By the end of that long war, thousands of Americans had been killed, and many more Americans had been wounded. In Pennsylvania alone, 197 Pennsylvanians were killed in action in the Iraq war and more than 1,200 were wounded. I haven't even talked about the conflict in Afghanistan, where Pennsylvania lost more than 90. The last number I saw was 91 Pennsylvanians were killed in action in Afghanistan. Pennsylvania is well familiar with contributing fighting men and women to conflicts from the beginning of our Republic until this very day. The administration's actions on Iran also ``echo'' our ongoing stalemate--``stalemate'' might be an understatement--regarding the authorization for use of military force--the so-called AUMF--against ISIS, for example. If we don't debate and vote on an AUMF as it relates to Iran or any other country or any other conflict, we are not doing our job. For 6 years, the United States has been engaged in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. For many years, the executive branch has relied on the 2001 authorization for use of military force to justify its fight against ISIS, as well as to justify other military engagements. I ask Majority Leader McConnell to set aside time for sustained debate and votes on a new authorization for use of military force. Last month, Secretary of State Pompeo implied during testimony in front of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate that the 2001 AUMF to go after al-Qaida and its affiliates authorizes war with Iran. A lot of people would disagree with that. I believe that an 18-year-old authorization needs an update--another understatement. The threats we confront today have evolved since 2001. As this administration seeks to link al-Qaida and Iran in anticipation of a military confrontation, I am concerned over the bipartisan failure to hold both this and the prior administration to account for their constitutional overreach over congressional authority. I commend Senator Kaine and other Senators from both parties for efforts over the last number of years to force a debate on congressional oversight over this issue. The majority leader should allow floor time and a robust debate on congressional war powers and oversight over the Executive's unilateral actions that send American troops overseas. The debate on the Yemen resolution and the vote--several votes, actually, on that--demonstrated that there is bipartisan concern over the use of force, but we need a broader debate than we had in the debate on the Yemen resolution. As this administration pursues a reckless strategy with Iran, it is time for a sustained debate and vote on a new authorization for use of military force that allows our Nation to, in fact, destroy terrorists and fight threats to U.S. national security but doesn't result in endless war. The 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force authorizing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are outdated and must be replaced. I will conclude with some words from Abraham Lincoln in that now- famous letter to Mrs. Bixby in which he talked about the loss of her sons' lives in the Civil War. When they did the checks on it, it turned out to be two sons. When the President was writing, he thought she had lost five sons. But we still have families who suffer the loss of a son or a daughter in conflict--we hope not as many as two or more. In this case, in the second paragraph, President Lincoln said ``the grief of a loss so overwhelming.'' He then went on to say to this grieving mother: But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. So said President Lincoln at that time. The words still ring true today--``the grief of a loss so overwhelming,'' the memory of ``the loved and lost.'' It goes on to read ``so costly a sacrifice.'' Every President should read this letter as he or she deliberates about the use of force that commits our sons and daughters to fight and risk their lives. When we talk about so costly a sacrifice, we all know what happened in our State. Military families in Pennsylvania, in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, endured so costly a sacrifice. I hope President Trump will reread this letter as he deliberates our next steps with regard to Iran and our next steps with regard to the authorization for the use of military force. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev20 of 94Next