-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source