War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak, along with my colleagues, on the War Powers Resolution, followed by Senator Warnock, that will be called up soon.

I have spoken on this topic often, about once a week, since the war against Iran began at the end of February, sometimes speaking on behalf of my own resolutions and sometimes speaking on behalf of the resolutions of colleagues. I am very happy that Senator Warnock's resolution will be called up today. I believe he will be the last speaker before we begin voting.

And you have heard from other colleagues. I won't belabor a point that I have made often on the floor, but I do want to talk about this particular moment in time.

I do believe this war is illegal because it has not been authorized by Congress. I believe the war is unwise because we had a diplomatic deal that was controlling Iran's nuclear program that President Trump tore up. And thus, this is a war that was not necessary if the United States had done what we normally do and preferred diplomacy to war.

I believe these 14 troops would not have been killed. I believe we wouldn't have spent tens of billions of dollars pursuing an unnecessary war with an additional pricetag of probably hundreds of billions of dollars to replenish our munitions stock and repair infrastructure that has been damaged.

And I also believe that Americans would not have had to pay more than $50 billion extra at the gas pump since the war began on February 28. Those are arguments I have made often on the floor that I don't intend to repeat today.

But the argument that I want to make today is about why this timing for the War Powers Resolution is sort of propitious, why this timing makes this vote different than the vote that we had 2 weeks or 4 weeks ago or 8 weeks ago.

We are in day 100-plus of this war, but I am happy that President Trump has announced a cease-fire and a potential deal to be signed and revealed on Friday. Now, I don't know exactly what is in the deal, but I believe an off-ramp to a war that never should have been started is a good thing.

We will have the opportunity to debate the deal once we know more details about it, but taking an off-ramp to a war that should never have been started is a positive.

What this off-ramp means is, I would say, we are in an intermission. We don't exactly know what the second act will be. We don't know if the intermission will hold. We don't know if the parties will comply with their obligations.

We are hearing that the deal may well be a partial deal that would, for example, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the blockade on Iranian ports and stop the back-and-forth bombardment between the United States and Iran and other actors in the region.

But we are also being told there will be some components to the deal that will not be done, and then we will enter into a longer term discussion, for example, about all of the important details regarding Iran's nuclear program.

So let's just say we are in an intermission, and we don't know how long the intermission will be. I think the fact that we are in an intermission is the perfect time to vote for a War Powers Resolution, specifying, we should not restart a war against Iran without the consultation with Congress that should have started before the war was begun.

Why restart a war and risk more lives of our kids? Why restart a war and risk more damage to American families and their pocketbooks? Why restart a war and risk more damage to the global economy? Why restart a war and risk more dollars coming out of the U.S. Treasury that will have to be paid by the U.S. taxpayers?

An intermission is a great time to do what we should have done before this war, which is have the consultation with Congress that the Constitution requires. Why restart a war if we haven't done our job?

There is also a second reason that is really related to the first reason that makes this a particularly propitious time to vote yes on Senator Warnock's resolution. We know that the United States and Iran are engaged in a negotiation, and they are trading proposals back and forth.

I would think that my colleagues in the Senate would want to see and understand the details of those proposals and reach their own conclusion about whether a deal is a good deal or a bad deal.

If President Trump reaches an agreement with Iran that touches upon any aspect of the Iranian nuclear program, the President is obligated to submit that to Congress under a bill that I offered many years ago, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and Congress would have a chance to look at any deal dealing with Iran's nuclear program in deciding whether it was a good deal or a bad deal.

But what if President Trump decides: I am not entering into a deal because I think it is a bad deal, and we need to go back to war? Should we allow President Trump the unilateral ability to make a decision that a deal is a bad deal, and we need to go back to war?

Under the INARA act, the President has to submit any proposed deal to Congress, but he doesn't have to submit his refusal to enter into a deal to Congress. We might have our own judgment about whether a deal was good enough or insufficient.

I mean, I could foresee a circumstance where President Trump might say: We have had this negotiation. Iran has not made enough commitments. So we are not going to agree, and we are going to end the intermission and go back to war.

But the Senate might have a different opinion. We might look at a deal that the President doesn't find sufficient and say: It is not perfect. We wish it were better. But it is far superior to going back to war and risking the lives of more of our troops or spending tens of billions of dollars.

And the only way that we can guarantee that we would have an opportunity to weigh in on whether a deal--hey, it, actually, though not perfect, is better than going back to war--is if we pass a resolution, saying: You cannot restart this war without getting congressional approval.

I have listened very carefully to my colleagues who have been voting against the War Powers Resolutions. They have all kinds of reasons. I don't question their reasons.

Some believe, for example, that the President has unilateral ability to wage military action for about 60 days pursuant to the War Powers Act. And so, some were voting against War Powers Resolutions during the first 60 days. But I think at least four have joined and now decided to vote for War Powers Resolutions since day 60 passed.

But I have also heard some colleagues say, sincerely: I don't want to vote for a War Powers Resolution while the United States is engaged in military action against Iran because it might be sending a message to troops that they are not being supported. And even though they are troubled by the war and even though they are troubled about being after day 60, they don't want to send a message that would undercut U.S. troops that are engaged in military action at the very moment.

OK. If that is the case--and I understand that argument, I understand it--then this would be a time when we are in the intermission where you could vote for a War Powers Resolution without undercutting any action that is currently underway involving U.S. troops.

So my hope is that my colleagues will take advantage of the fact that we are in this intermission, an intermission of undetermined length, to do what the Constitution demands that we do and insist that we not restart a damaging war against Iran without Congress weighing in and voting on it.

For that reason, I will support Senator Warnock's resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source