This week, there have been dizzying
developments in the war with Iran.
Midweek, the US called the war
concluded, moving instead
to Project Freedom to
open the Strait of Hormuz.
But President Trump quickly quit
Project Freedom.
Now both sides are considering a
peace plan in the midst of an uneasy
ceasefire.
How to make sense of this, even as
the price of oil goes up and
down with mixed messaging,
while the price at the pump stays
high.
Democratic U.S.
Senator Tammy Baldwin is here, and
thanks very much for being here.
Thank you for having me.
So with all that's happening, what
in your mind is the best outcome?
The best outcome would be for the
war to come to a quick end
and to use diplomacy
to settle the issues.
I always have to remind folks
that in 2015,
there was an international
agreement that
would have prevented Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon.
There were intrusive inspections,
and Donald Trump in his first
term as president ripped
get up.
I think we may end up
in this conflict with
a deal that's less
robust than the one that was
agreed to in 2015.
Look, diplomacy is the answer,
and instead, Donald
Trump has brought us into
a war of choice.
And I emphasize that
point because we were not under
attack from Iran.
We were not in imminent threat of
attack. And in those
circumstances...
The president needs to come to
Congress to authorize use of
military force.
He didn't.
So now we have 13 service
members dead.
We have hundreds more injured,
some very seriously.
And we see these
price shocks with gasoline,
with fertilizer for our farmers
that are just getting ready to
plant.
I've been a part of an effort
with a number of colleagues to force
votes on war powers
resolutions.
And we are gaining support
over time from our Republican
colleagues.
But that's what we need to do is
bring this to a quick
end and use
diplomacy to achieve.
Do you feel as
though the administration is
skirting the War Powers Resolution
by declaring this war
concluded, terminated, over?
I heard just a
week ago the
Secretary of Defense say,
well, you can't toll the days
that we've been in a ceasefire.
Those don't count as
part of the 60 days
that the
War Powers Act references.
But regardless,
we are currently
in hostilities.
We are clearly in
a war.
And it is an
unmitigated disaster for
the U.S.
And the global economy.
Because you were just describing
the best case outcome,
what would be the worst?
The worst is that we end up
far less secure as
an economy as well as as
a nation because of
this war of choice,
this illegal war of choice.
You know, and while it's not
tangible, the damage it's
doing to the rule of law in this
country is worth noting.
What are your constituents saying
about what it means for them here at
home?
Well, I'm hearing mostly about the
costs. We have had the
highest cost really ever on
average for gasoline at
$4.50 on
average across the state.
Farmers are really reaching
out to describe
the shortage of fertilizer
as well as the high price if
they can source it.
This will affect what they're able
to plant this year.
And, you know, that's all on top
of the president's
previous trade wars that have cut
off markets for
our farmers and have
really jacked up the
cost of input.
So I would say overwhelming
opposition to the war,
but mostly articulated
by folks who
are just feeling the squeeze, and
they were already feeling the
lack of affordability prior
to the war beginning.
This has just doubled down on
that.
Seeing all of that, how do you think
the war in Iran affects the midterm
elections?
I think that people
will be more likely to vote for
those who have opposed the war
and have taken actions
or spoken out against
it and have
articulated that they
will be a check and a
balance to this president,
not somebody
who just loyally
goes down whatever path he takes
us.
So we were just talking about
agriculture and fertilizer and
inputs for farmers.
The U.S. Senate is poised to take up
the farm bill after the House passed
the $390 billion
version of
it. What are your priorities for the
farm bill for Wisconsin?
Well, looking at the bill that was
passed by the House,
I realize that it doesn't really
respond to the enormous
headwinds our farmers are facing.
Look, they're the hardest working
people I know,
supplying food for not only
the country, but the world.
And the Farm Bill needs
to address those challenges.
One of the things that makes the
House passed bill really a
non-starter in the Senate is the
refusal to restore
some of the nutrition funding
that was cut from the president,
what he calls his One Big Beautiful
Bill Act, it doesn't restore
the $186 billion
that was cut out of the SNAP
program.
And that is
something that brings
folks together in terms of
farm policy. But in
the terms of my priorities.
The Dairy Business Innovation
Act is one that I
got in the last farm bill.
It's been so successful for
dairy businesses to grow
and improve their bottom line,
and I want to see
increased support for that.
The House Pass Bill does not include
my Healthy H2O Act,
which helps folks in
rural areas check their water for
PFAS and other contaminants.
Things that they really can't afford
to do without some help,
and also the Farmers
First Act.
Farmers, because of the stresses,
financial and otherwise, that they
face, have high rates
of suicide.
And so this is a mental health
program that helps reduce
that stress
and helps make sure
that there are support
groups.
Locally for them to turn to.
How difficult will it be to
pass the Farm Bill?
I think that we can craft
a bill on the Senate side that is
bipartisan and that foresees
what will be necessary to
garner the bipartisan support
necessary to pass a bill.
You know we see this over and over
again in the Senate, you need sixty
votes to pass Farm Bill.
In the House it's a simple majority
so they can write a partisan package
and pass it.
But we need to write a bi-partisan
package that really addresses
the challenges that we're hearing.
From our farmers.
On disaster aid, we know that
Governor Evers reached out to
Wisconsin's congressional delegation
for help getting more than $26
million in federal disaster
aid to fix infrastructure after last
summer's floods that the
president had denied.
What inroads is our delegation
making into recovering
that aid?
Yeah, I mean, certainly I
was pleased that the
administration approved
some of the
grants for personal loss,
individual losses that were faced.
But for the public infrastructure,
they turned it down, and I see no
reason for that.
In fact, I'm concerned that there
were politics involved.
Meanwhile, we have
a new set of
tornadoes and flood damage
that has just happened in the past
month.
And we need to work with the
administration to make
those citizens and
communities whole as
best as possible through
work with FEMA.
You know, the president came into
office pledging to abolish
FEMA. He hasn't succeeded
in that. We understand that
there is a role for the federal
government in.
Emergency management and
emergency relief and
we need to hold them
accountable to that.
We will see.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, thanks very
much.
Thank you.