Housing for the 21st Century Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans have learned nothing from decades of American hubris in the Middle East, believing that U.S. troops, U.S. planes, U.S. guns, and U.S. bombs could fundamentally change realities in a far-off land.

Democrats have learned our lesson. We watched as thousands of American soldiers died in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

We listened to Donald Rumsfeld say that the Iraq war would be over in 5 days, 5 weeks, maybe 5 months. It created an insurgency inside the Middle East that we are still dealing with today--20 years in Afghanistan, a mismanaged war from the start. The Taliban is back in charge.

We ran planes over Libya to release the people from captivity imposed upon them by Qadhafi, only to unleash a new civil war that killed thousands upon thousands.

It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to learn lessons. It is amazing to me that my Republican colleagues refuse to listen to the American people, who do not want American soldiers and American lives and their taxpayer dollars wasted on endeavors in the Middle East that are going to make things worse, not better.

I heard my friend Senator Graham in his analysis of the Ayatollah. I agree with him. But not everything is World War II. Not every effort at regime change works. In fact, regrettably, World War II and our operations against Hitler are the exception, not the norm. Whether it be in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Libya, over and over again, trillions of dollars in American taxpayer money has been spent to try to create regime change, and we have been frustrated and denied in those efforts, and we have lost lives in that process.

When are we going to learn?

And that is the message that we are sending the Iranian people. I was in the briefing with my Republican colleagues. I don't think any of us left that briefing believing that the American military was going to ride to the rescue of the Iranian people when they arrive in the streets to protest for freedom.

You can't support a people's revolution from the air. Only ground forces could support and protect the Iranian people when they show up in the squares of that nation, protesting for democracy.

But I am telling you that it looks like the plan is to leave the Iranian people hanging out to dry, because if all we are doing is dropping bombs on targeted sites inside Iran, if we are not actually involved in a regime change--and, by the way, we have been told, over and over again, by this administration that we are not going to quibble over who runs Iran next, even if it ends up being a hard-line government. Then we are goading the Iranian people out onto the streets, with the implicit promise that we will be there with them but the decision made behind closed doors that we will not.

Six Americans have already died for an illegal war that no one in this country wants. And 900 to 1,000 people in the region have died. U.S. Embassies all over the region are under attack. Thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan right now are protesting--a Shia insurgency targeting the United States in the works. Iranian missile and drone attacks have hit targets as far away as Cyprus.

Oil prices are up by 9 percent. Gasoline prices had their largest 1- day increase in 20 years. Natural gas prices are up 45 percent. The region is in chaos.

American consumers are paying the price, and for what? We still don't even know the reason for this war. Half the administration is out there saying: Well, Israel pulled us in.

I hear my friend Senator Graham saying that this was a war of choice, but half the administration is saying it wasn't, saying that Iran was going to attack and the only reason that we got involved was because Israel was going to attack, and the only reason we got involved was because we feared the blowback from Iran. We were dragged into the war by Bibi Netanyahu.

Others, like Senator Graham and sometimes President Trump, say: No, America decided on our own to enter this war.

But then for what? Are we engaged in regime change or not? If you aren't engaged in regime change, why did you take out the Ayatollah and all of those who were surrounding him? That clearly is a signal that you want regime change.

Are we going after their nuclear program or not? We all know that airpower alone cannot eliminate their nuclear capacity.

And if the goal is not regime change and we accept that new hard-line leadership is going to take over in Iran, then that is a recipe for perpetual war, because the only way that you will be able to destroy their capacity to make missiles and drones is to be permanently running jets overhead and constantly bombing the new sites that the hard-line regime sets up.

That is endless war. That is trillions of dollars. And for what? If, at the end of this engagement, there is harder line leadership in charge of Iran than at the beginning, then why do we do it? If at the end of this process, because we won't go in with ground forces, the nuclear program still exists, why did we do it? If we are going to hang the Iranian people out to dry and we aren't going to get their back when they stand up against the regime, why did we do it?

The first several days of this conflict have been criminally incompetent, shifting rationales for the war; no plan to get American assets protected, to get Americans out of the region; shifting explanations for what the purpose of the war is and very mixed messages to the Iranian people.

History tells us that an air campaign alone will never be successful in toppling a despotic regime. In fact, without--let me caveat that: without the serious threat of a ground invasion. History, in fact, tells us that what is most likely to happen is that it hardens the resolve of the existing regime; that it ends up in even worse, more provocative, more dangerous leadership taking hold.

President Trump seemed to think out loud in comments he made yesterday. He was asked what the worst case scenario was, and, as if it had just occurred to him for the first time, he said: Yes, I think the worst case scenario would be that we do all this bombing, we spend a trillion dollars, a whole bunch of lives get lost, and it ends up with the Iranians choosing even harder line leadership that are more provocative and dangerous and deadly in the region.

That is not the worst case scenario. That is the most likely scenario. And the idea that it is just occurring to him that this thing may go off the rails, as almost every other engagement in the region has over the last several decades, should be stunning to all of you.

The alternative then is a ground invasion, which no one in this country wants. No one in this country wants that. That would kill tens of thousands of Americans. Yes, it might end up with you being able to prop up a democratic regime. You might actually be able to get the nuclear program with a ground invasion, but that is tens of thousands of Americans dead in the process.

Air campaign: proven to be ineffective to carry out the goals that are being articulated by the administration. Ground invasion: deadly, impossible to rally the American people around. This is a no-win strategy. It is a no-win strategy, and the cost to the American people is substantial: higher prices, Americans dead, and, frankly, just a President distracted--a President who seems to care more about running Venezuela and dropping bombs on Iran than he does care about the American people.

So I know many of my Republican colleagues, including the last speaker, have been, historically, incredibly optimistic about the difference the American military can make in the Middle East, with zero evidence of that to be the case.

President Trump was elected, in part, because he promised he wasn't going to get the United States involved in another Middle Eastern war. People took him seriously, and now he has gotten us involved in the most significant new conflict in the region in decades.

Let me say one final thing. I am supportive of Senator Kaine's resolution, but it is not an authorization of military force. Our most sacred obligation as a Congress is to authorize war, and a President is prohibited by the Constitution and by the statutes of the United States from entering into war without that authorization.

I am glad we are having this debate, but it is not a substitute for an authorization of military force. Even if it fails, that does not give the President legal permission to carry out this endeavor.

Senator Graham held up a poster in which he showed that there were 130 different occasions in which various Presidents of the United States have engaged in military actions overseas without the consent of Congress. That is true. But that doesn't mean that it is legal or constitutional.

If your neighbor breaks into your house 130 times in a row, that doesn't mean that it is suddenly permissible by law.

In fact, the outrage gets more acute and more serious as the brazen lawlessness and unconstitutional actions of an administration get more regular.

We need to authorize this war. I, frankly, believe that we shouldn't proceed with other business until we get a commitment to have a debate on an authorization of military force. I don't think it would pass. I think it is easier for some of our colleagues to come up with some procedural justification to vote against the War Powers Resolution than it is to put their name on a proactive declaration of war.

So I want that debate. I think the Senate has to demand that debate. I think our legacy will be soured as a body if we let this, the most significant military action in the Middle East since the Iraq war, persist without using whatever leverage we have to have a debate on this war.

It is really hard--I will wrap up. I know I have colleagues on the floor who want to speak.

It is really hard to encapsulate in one speech how dangerous, how inane, how illegal, how ill-planned this war with Iran is, especially just after the first few days. We are likely going to end up with a worse Iranian regime at the end. We are telling the Iranian people to rise up on the streets, but we have no plan to support them if they do.

We cannot, with an air campaign alone, take out their nuclear program if it is buried underground. We cannot, with an air campaign, take out their missile and drone program, unless we are basically ready to bomb Iran permanently. That is a trillion-dollar war that lasts years.

We aren't prepared to do the thing that would end the regime and take out the nuclear program--a ground invasion--because, of course, the cost of that would be thousands of American lives.

So worse people take over in the end than the Ayatollah. We don't end their nuclear program. We don't end their weapons program. We leave the Iranian people out to dry.

And at what cost? Oil and gas prices are spiking. Grocery and household items won't be far behind. A half dozen families are about to bury their dead children. The military tells us there is going to be a lot more casualties to come. This war is going to cost trillions of dollars. That means no money to lower your healthcare premiums, no money to fix your kids' schools, because all the money is going to go to billion-dollar defense companies that profit off of endless war.

This is a disaster, and it is made more of a disaster because we are not going to actually debate an authorization of military force. This is not a substitute for that debate, and I think all of my Democratic colleagues agree.

We should not sugarcoat this. This is already a disaster of epic proportions, and I am just going to tell you it is likely to get worse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source