This week, there have been dizzying developments in the war with Iran.
Last week, the U.S. 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 it 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 under 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
our goals.
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 and 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.
Saying 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, you know, not somebody who just lily 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?
Yeah.
Well, looking at the bill that was passed by the House, I realized 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 passed 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.
We see this over and over again in the Senate.
You need 60 votes to pass a 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 bipartisan 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, that 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.
All right.
We will see.
Senator Tammy Baldwin.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.