Tim Kaine

Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an exemplary Virginian and outstanding citizen, LTC Mark L. Haaland, U.S. Army, Retired. Lieutenant Colonel Haaland is retiring from his position as director of government affairs for the Association of the United States Army, AUSA, where he has been a leading advocate and voice for the total Army--Regular Army, Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, Army civilians, Army families, and veterans--for nearly 8 years. He exemplifies a lifetime of commitment and service to our Nation, his community, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and his family.

As the son of an Army officer and Vietnam war veteran, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland knew from a young age that his life's path would be one of service. After his family moved to Hampton, VA, in 1972, when his father was assigned to the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Mark attended Kecoughtan High School, where he met his future wife Toni Minetti. Following his graduation in 1975, he attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, graduating with the Class of 1979 before beginning a 20-year Army career as an armor officer serving in operational units and on the Army staff at the Pentagon.

Virginia has remained central to Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's life and service. He and Toni, a Hampton native whose father Pat Minetti devoted his own career to public service as a Hampton police officer before retiring as the city's chief of police, were married at Fort Monroe in 1979. During Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's Army service, the family returned to Hampton, while he served at the Army Training and Doctrine Command. Since his assignment to Headquarters, Department of the Army in 1993, Mark and Toni have made Fairfax County their home for more than three decades. Both of their children were born in Virginia, attended Virginia public schools, and graduated from Virginia universities.

After retiring from Active Duty, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland continued to dedicate his career to strengthening our national security. Whether serving on Capitol Hill, in the private sector, or in the nonprofit community, he has earned a reputation for steady leadership, a positive outlook, kindness, and professionalism. These qualities have been a source of strength for the many people he has led, mentored, and taught throughout his career.

At AUSA, headquartered in Arlington, VA, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland led the development and implementation of the association's outreach and advocacy strategy to advance AUSA's priorities before Congress and the executive branch. AUSA's government affairs mission is to educate, inform, and connect in support of the total Army through consistent, principled, and effective advocacy. Lieutenant Colonel Haaland has excelled in every aspect of that mission and has often remarked that it has been one of the greatest honors of his career to advocate for soldiers, Army civilians, veterans, retirees, and military families. He will be missed by all who have had the privilege to work with him.

Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's commitment to service extends well beyond his professional career. He and Toni are active parishioners at Saint Mary of Sorrows Catholic Church in Fairfax, where Mark ministers to homebound seniors and volunteers to help provide meals for those experiencing food insecurity. He also remains deeply engaged in Virginia's military and veterans community through the American Legion and the Military Officers Association of America.

Lieutenant Colonel Haaland has served the Nation he loves with distinction and has been an exemplary leader for soldiers, his coworkers, and his community. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, we thank LTC Mark L. Haaland, his wife Toni, and their entire

family for their decades of commitment, sacrifice, and service to our Nation and to the Commonwealth of Virginia. We join our colleagues in wishing him a long, healthy, and joyful retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to what Americans all over this country are deeply feeling at this moment.

America is not a nation that prefers wars, but we are being led by an administration that is foolishly choosing war to solve problems that could best be solved by other means or--more troublingly--it is choosing to wage war to distract public attention from larger problems of its own making.

This pattern of foolishly choosing war, whatever the legality and whatever the price, is sacrificing the lives of American troops, killing innocent civilians, stressing our Nation's budget, imposing devastating costs on American families and businesses, dividing us from our allies, and shredding our reputation as a stabilizing force in the world.

The chaos and damage from these wars are mounting, even as the President contemplates more military misadventures in Cuba, Mali, and who knows where else.

Our constituents know that Congress is the only institution with the constitutional power to stop unnecessary war, and they are begging us to do so.

President Trump has launched three wars that are currently underway. He has not sought the approval of Congress for any of them. The wars are all, therefore, illegal.

But in addition to the illegality that naturally flows from a President starting a war without a congressional authorization, each war is also burdened by numerous other legal, moral, and strategic weaknesses.

The first war is Operation Southern Spear, a campaign that began nearly a year ago to use the U.S. military to strike boats in international waters near South America. To date, more than 65 separate strikes have killed more than 250 people on boats chosen as targets by our military.

The operation has been repeatedly justified by the Pentagon as attacks on narcotraffickers. But the evidence suggests that many innocent civilians--unarmed noncombatants who are not transporting narcotics--are being murdered in these strikes, even while reporting confirms that this bloodshed is not accomplishing its stated purpose of decreasing the amount of drugs coming into the United States.

Now, the administration has worked exceptionally hard to maintain all aspects of Operation Southern Spear as secret, as classified. Because it is all classified, I am severely limited in what I can say about it.

The President created a secret list of what he calls ``designated terrorist organizations,'' last July, as subjects for military attack. There is no law giving the President such a power to create such an attack list. I have reviewed the list, but because it is classified, I am not able to describe it here. And as a result of the fact that the list has never been made public, those marked by the President for execution have never been notified that the United States has placed a target on them.

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice produced a legal memo, last September, to justify boat strikes against narcotraffickers in very specific circumstances. The memo also carefully described prohibited activity that could not be legally justified. I have read that legal memo, but it remains classified. So I cannot discuss its contents.

In October, the Pentagon issued an implementation order to carry out the President's directive in accordance with the OLC legal opinion and limitations. That EXORD contains the targeting criteria that are to be used in choosing which boats to attack. I have reviewed the EXORD, but it has remained classified. So I cannot describe its contents.

Each of the attacks is accompanied by a file describing the strike. I have reviewed the files of nearly 50 of the strikes and will soon complete review of the remaining. Those files remain classified. So I cannot describe their contents.

So why--why--is the administration maintaining the classification of all of this Southern Spear information--the justification, the legal rationale, the target list, the targeting criteria, the strike files describing each attack? Why the secrecy?

It is obvious why the administration wants all this cloaked in secrecy. The President and the Pentagon don't want the American public to see what is being done in our name and with our tax dollars. They are trying to hide from the public--and even from this body--the flimsiness of their legal case and the exorbitant cost and ineffectiveness of the operation.

For example, the Pentagon is glad to show edited videos of an exploding boat to pat itself on the back about its lethality toward narcotraffickers. They proudly did so on social media, and all over mainstream media, following the first fatal strike of a boat last September--September 2.

But months after the administration produced this PR video of a fatal strike, it was revealed that the full video--the unedited video--also showed struggling survivors clinging to the boat's wreckage and seeking to be rescued.

In violation of U.S. and international law, the United States returned to the site in open international waters and killed the survivors.

I have seen the video, many of my colleagues have, and it is horrifying. The administration refuses to release it.

Now, remember that, at the time of that strike--September 2, 2025-- the existence of Southern Spear hadn't even been announced. Those struggling for their lives, clinging to shipwrecked wreckage, had not even been informed that they might be targeted. The United States killed them anyway and then selectively edited the video so that the American public would only see the flashy initial boat explosion but not see the cowardly and cold-blooded murder of desperate shipwrecked people that took place later.

And, you know, that is not even the most shocking thing about Southern Spear. The most shocking thing is that the administration has been lying to the American public about whether the campaign is even against narcotrafficking.

While I am not allowed to discuss the contents of the legal opinion, and I am not allowed to discuss the EXORD's targeting criteria, I can say this: In reviewing the targeting criteria and trying to match it up with the legal opinion, I was immediately struck by what was missing. So I am not going to describe the contents of either, but I was immediately struck by what was missing from the targeting criteria.

It is hard to believe this, but the targeting criteria used by the U.S. military to strike boats and kill people on open waters contain no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--nor is there any requirement that the sailors on any of these boats be armed.

Now, these criteria could have been included by the Pentagon in the targeting criteria that they chose, but they intentionally chose not to include the presence of narcotics or the presence of arms.

Why not restrict U.S. military attacks on boats to those we know to be carrying narcotics? How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to strike boats and kill those aboard with no evidence that the boats contain narcotics or arms? How could this be deemed self- defense, which is the requirement for the President to use lethal force without a congressional authorization?

I ask these questions as a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask these questions as the proud father of a U.S. marine.

How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to attack boats without evidence of narcotics and without evidence that those on board to be killed are armed?

Many of those killed in Operation Southern Spear--unarmed individuals not transporting narcotics--are not combat casualties. They are murder victims. Public reporting conclusively shows that some of those murdered have been humble fishermen, whose families saw them leave for an honest day's work and then never come home.

President Trump's second illegal war is Operation Absolute Resolve, the U.S. military invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime of dictator Nicolas Maduro.

I have long in this body, as the lead Democrat on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported all kinds of policies to sanction and punish and isolate the dictatorial Maduro regime. But using the U.S. military to invade a sovereign nation without congressional approval, and without any explanation or strategy for what might come next, is another matter entirely.

The world follows the example of this country, and if invading another nation's sovereign territory to kidnap its President and topple its government is acceptable for the United States, we lose our standing to criticize dictators around the world who might decide to do the same thing--in fact, who are currently doing the same thing.

The actual military invasion of Venezuela was at least brief, and I think all recognize that the U.S. military performed in a very exemplary fashion in carrying out the mission they were ordered to perform.

But its aftermath has been highly problematic. The United States is now using the American military to control the Venezuelan economy and government, and thus contributing to the oppression and subjugation of the Venezuelan people.

Even though Venezuelans chose overwhelmingly to reject the Maduro regime in a 2024 Presidential election, in favor of the political opposition headed by the recent Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado and the duly elected President Edmundo Gonzalez the United States has, following the invasion, thrown its support behind the Maduro regime by propping up his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as the country's leader.

The United States just announced a potential process toward finding elections and democracy in Venezuela. And guess who is leading it. Vice President Rodriguez' brother, part of the Maduro regime that was and remains oppressive toward Venezuelan people.

Public reporting suggests that the administration has deliberately made it difficult for Maria Corina Machado, who just won the Nobel prize 7 months ago for her advocacy for Venezuelans, and for Edmundo Gonzalez, the duly elected President of the country. The United States has made it hard for them to return home to Venezuela, even in the aftermath of a horrible earthquake that has killed and injured thousands and thousands of their countrymen and women.

Why is this administration choosing to support the Maduro-Rodriguez dictatorship and impede authentic leaders who offer a new chapter for the Venezuelan people?

The Venezuelan people deserve a government by, of, and for Venezuelans. Maintaining Maduro's cronies in place and allowing them to continue the oppression of the Venezuelan people, primarily to benefit well-connected energy companies, is not a legitimate use of American military power.

Rodriguez and the remnants of the Maduro regime are moving aggressively to consolidate their hold on power that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans want to dislodge. Like despots around the world, they have learned how to humor the administration in the short run and buy its affection, and then, hopefully, wait until we get distracted and move our attention elsewhere.

And it is Venezuelans who are suffering, especially in the aftermath of the earthquake, as they watch the government of the Maduro Vice President, Rodriguez, not be able to effectively provide services to those who are in need of disaster relief.

Finally, America has spilled much blood and treasure during President Trump's foolish war against Iran.

On February 27, we were not at war, and the Strait of Hormuz was open; and the price of gas and other key commodities were as normal as things can be in 2026. But President Trump--without a clear plan, a coherent rationale, the participation of allies, the approval of Congress, or the support of the American public--launched Operation Epic Fury.

The President ignored his own promise to avoid more war in the Middle East. He fulfilled a sad prophecy many of us made during his first term, when he tore up a diplomatic deal that was working to control Iran's nuclear program. Those who make diplomacy impossible make war inevitable.

Now, 5 months later, the folly of this illegal war has been made plain to all. Eighteen U.S. troops have been killed, and the President--it has recently been revealed--and the Pentagon are disrespectfully reclassifying some of those deaths as not being related to the war so that the President can downplay the true impact it has on service members. Hundreds of our troops have been injured, although the Pentagon is trying to downplay those numbers as well. Thousands of innocent Iranian civilians have died, including children-- schoolchildren--who were killed when the United States bombed a school in the opening days of the war.

The costs of the war to the American taxpayer has ballooned into tens of billions of dollars, and the Pentagon is

now seeking an astronomical extra increase in last year's record defense budget to pay for the costs of this war, which have all been self-imposed costs. American families are paying more for gasoline. American farmers are paying more for fertilizer and diesel. American businesses are paying more for goods and materials that normally flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

And, in recent days, a new challenge has emerged, one that the administration should easily have anticipated. The Houthis, who are together allied with Iran and are strategically positioned in Yemen, have started to cut off transit through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in addition to the closures in the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world's major commercial routes and threatens even more inflation that will punish American consumers.

The endless rounds of start-stop and the frequent Presidential proclamations of victory or cease-fire, then to be interrupted by new rounds of the back-and-forth of attacks in the region, have produced a profound uncertainty that is endangering economic prospects in all corners of the Earth.

Now these three foolish and illegal wars--Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, Epic Fury--are largely rejected by the American public. Our voters want us to make their lives better, not waste their money in pointless military engagements far from home, especially with regard to Trump's war with Iran.

Haven't we learned something from 20-plus years of war in the Middle East? The Global War on Terror cost the United States more than 14,000 lives, led to more than 65,000 American casualties, and skyrocketed costs into the trillions of taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on education and infrastructure and healthcare investments at home.

Americans want a President, but more than that, Americans want a government that will spend our dollars here to make energy, healthcare, childcare, and other necessities like groceries more affordable. The President has already punished us enough with his chaotic tariff taxes and his doubling down on illegal wars just to make things so much harder for everyday people.

So what can we do? What can we do?

Knowing that the President is likely to plow forward on this failed and destructive policy, Congress has to finally stand up. The Iran war is triply illegal.

First, it is unconstitutional because the President launched it without having the congressional approval required by article I of the Constitution.

Second, the war violates the War Powers Act of 1973. This act allows a President to initiate military action in very specific circumstances: if there is a declaration of war by Congress, which there hasn't been; if there is an authorization for use of military force passed by Congress, which there hasn't been; or in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions were met prior to the President's launching of this war.

But even if one were to assume that one of those conditions had been met, the War Powers Act requires that any military activity started by the President without Congress has to hit a hard stop at 60 days unless Congress affirmatively votes to continue it. We are well past the 60- day point--we are now past the 5-month point--with no congressional authorization. Yet the President continues to send more troops to the region and threaten more attacks as the American public watches more flag-draped caskets come home.

Now both Houses of Congress, under Republican majorities, have passed legislation requiring the President to remove U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran unless Congress passes a war authorization. The President has not removed troops from hostilities. He is actually sending more into harm's way. The President has not sought a vote on a war authorization because he knows that such a vote would lose in both Houses in Congress in a dramatic fashion. Instead, he has taken the warmongering all on his own shoulders.

President Trump can ignore the law, and he can break the law, but he can't change the law. If the President won't abide by the Constitution, by the War Powers Act, or the express will of two Republican-majority Houses of Congress, we have one more power. Only Congress can appropriate funds for war or defense operations.

As the President and his Cabinet are here seeking even more funds to carry out his illegal wars and fighting against any guardrails against his warmongering, Congress has to stand up against him. We have to stand up against illegal wars. We have to stand up for our troops. We have to stand up for our military families. We have to stand up for citizens who want a government focused on making lives better, not waging warfare away across the world. And we have to stand up for America the peacemaker, not America the war wager.

It is telling that at the very moment we are in the middle of these three illegal and undeclared wars that are causing a huge cost to our troops and innocent civilians, the President and the Pentagon are choosing this moment to try to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War. Of course, they are. They want performative war in the worst possible way. They care more about the optics and the trolling Twitter with flashy videos than they do about doing the hard work necessary to keep Americans safe and defend this country.

You know, most nations actually had a Department of War during much of their history, and the United States did too. America had a Secretary of War and a War Cabinet for many, many years during the history of this Nation. But after World War II, when President Harry Truman, who had seen the bloodshed of war as a military officer in World War I and had to make consequential decisions as the Commander in Chief to end World War II, stood back and said: Do you know what? The United States is a great nation. We shouldn't prefer war; we should prefer defense. Let's defend our Nation, and let's tell the world we will do anything necessary to defend our Nation, but let's make it clear to the rest of the world that the mission of our military is not war; it is defense. We changed, in 1947, the Secretary of War to the Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon is the Defense Department, not the War Department. And guess what. It was a great thing the United States did.

When nations all around the world saw us do it, they did it too-- Britain and France, also World War II enemies like Germany and Japan, and current adversaries like Russia and China. All other nations followed the diplomatic lead of the United States and said: The mission of military should not be war. We don't prefer war. The mission should be vigorous defense. Brazil was actually the last nation to make the switch. They did it about three decades ago.

So now, in the world, the use of war to describe the mission or the Cabinet or the Secretary is virtually unheard of, except the United States wants to bring it back. President Trump and his self-titled ``Secretary of War'' want to switch us back so that we, instead, brag about the fact that we are focused and interested in war. It is a pending matter that is contained within the National Defense Authorization Act that will be debated on the floor here in the next few months. The Pentagon has even changed its email address to war.gov.

This is juvenile and embarrassing, and it would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

Is this who the United States of America has become now--war.gov?

Is that how we want to be known in our history?

Is that how we want to be known by allies and adversaries around the world--as a nation that prefers war to diplomacy? as a nation that sends its troops into harm's way for needless wars of choice rather than being focused on the vigorous defense of our homeland and our way of life?

I don't believe that is who this country is after 250 years, so I am going to keep challenging the President's illegal and foolish wars at every opportunity and with every tool granted me as a U.S. Senator, being mindful of Mother Teresa's wisdom: We are not called to be successful. We are called to be faithful.

If we focus on being faithful to our history, to our values, to our troops and their families and to our citizens, we are likely to be successful. In doing so, we can reclaim the role for Congress that our Founders envisioned as

they embarked upon this 250-year experiment in American democracy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will move into a series of votes, and one of the votes is a motion to proceed to a resolution that I filed a number of weeks back, an Iran War Powers Resolution.

The current status of that resolution is that, about a month ago, we successfully discharged it from the Committee, and so it is now able to be called up on a motion to proceed.

I want to just inform all of my colleagues that, while I am always going to vote for a motion to proceed to my resolution, the resolution is completely superfluous. It is completely superfluous because both Houses of Congress have now taken the historic step of voting for the first time, under the history of the War Powers Resolution, that the President of the United States cannot restart a war legally unless he asks Congress for permission. That has left the station.

Both Houses--Republican majority--have said it will be illegal for Donald Trump to start back the war against Iran without a vote of Congress.

And so any action on the motion to proceed to my resolution is superfluous because that vote is done, Congress has spoken, and the will of both Houses is now clear.

So I will vote to proceed to my motion, but no one else should feel any stress about this one. Congress has clearly spoken and rebuked the President for starting an illegal war, and said he can't restart it without us.

I yield the floor.