Iran
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious topic, one that I have often addressed on the floor of the Senate during my 13-plus years here but that I have particularly been focused on since President Trump decided to launch a war against Iran on February 28 of this year. And the issue is whether we should ever be at war without a vote of Congress.
The consequences of the war that President Trump started are pretty well known to the American public. We have now spent in excess of $50 billion of United States taxpayer money on the war, with the need to spend more to replenish munition stockpiles and repair infrastructure that has been damaged by Iran--United States infrastructure in the nations near that country.
More important than the dollars we have lost are the lives that have been lost--13 U.S. troops including a Virginian, CW3 Robert Marzan, have lost their lives in this war, and thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed.
The damage has not just been to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers and to our troops and Iranian civilians; it has also been to everyday American families. Because of the instability of the war, the Strait of Hormuz was closed, as all predicted it might be if President Trump launched this war; and that has led to escalating fuel prices. The estimates are that Americans have paid already $50 billion more for fuel since February 28 than they would have if President Trump had not started this war.
I could go on about the consequences, now being 110 days or so into this war, but I don't think I need to because I think the American public understands them very well.
But I am here today to rise again, as I have beginning within the first few days of the war--essentially every week--to ask my colleagues to do what the Constitution says we should do and direct the President to cease hostilities against Iran until--until--Congress authorizes a war.
The most solemn power, in my view, in article I of the Constitution-- the most solemn power for Congress is Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. That was done very deliberately as the Constitution was drawn up in 1787 in Philadelphia because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed, even with someone as talented as George Washington ready to assume the Presidency of the United States, that the stakes and consequences of war were so vast that a decision about war should never be in the hands of a single person but, instead, should be vested in the legislative branch so that a decision about sending our best and brightest, our kids, into war-- and the Presiding Officer knows more about the real costs of war than virtually anybody in this Chamber--that before we send our best and brightest into war, it should be based upon a very careful and deliberate debate, in full view of the American public so they can understand the stakes, and then war can be initiated once Congress has decided this is in the national interest.
Congress has not done this with respect to the war in Iran, and that is not unusual. Congress has often abdicated this responsibility over the years. But we take an oath to a Constitution that brooks no end- running on this, that Congress has to own this responsibility. And so I rise again today for the 10th or 11th time--we have tried to have this vote virtually every week--on the floor of the Senate to say no war in Iran unless Congress, by vote, approves it.
In the earlier votes we have had, we have been voting on Senate resolutions, and most of the resolutions have failed, although they have failed narrowly. There was one positive vote on a resolution that I put forward, and it was a motion to discharge that resolution from committee that actually passed the Senate by a 50-to-47 vote. There were some absences that day, but it did pass. And so my resolution is still pending on the floor, but that is not the resolution we are going to be voting on today.
After lunch, I will ask to be pulled up a House concurrent resolution. The Republican-majority House has passed a resolution saying: Mr. President, no war in Iran without a vote of Congress. And this afternoon I will not be pulling up a Senate resolution, which, if successful, would have to go to the House. Instead, I am pulling up the concurrent resolution that the House has already acted upon.
Why is this vote different than the earlier ones we have had? Well, I have already explained procedurally it is a bit different because we are taking up the House concurrent resolution, but that may not necessarily be a difference maker as people try to decide how to vote.
Let me talk about why this vote is different than the earlier votes in terms of the merits of the case--the merits of saying right now to the President: No more war without a vote of Congress.
The first difference is, with each day, the consequences of the war become more apparent. We are acting with more knowledge. Even since the vote we had last week, we now have the administration has come to us with a supplemental request asking for $80 billion more, largely necessitated by the consequences of the war: to replenish munitions stockpiles and take other actions that wouldn't fully repair damages, for example, that the Pentagon has incurred but would start to.
So we have some more information than last week.
The second thing we have is, I think we have more information about where Members of this body are. Many of us believe the war was foolish and illegal and never should have been started. Many of us believe the memorandum of understanding that was revealed last week is insufficient. Many of us believe both of those things are true.
In fact, I have been trying to monitor the comments of my Senate colleagues, and I would venture to say that about two-thirds of the Senators--maybe even higher now--have either expressed their belief that the war should never have been waged or their belief that the MOU is inadequate.
And so now we know a little bit more about where this body is, and that is also based upon each day brings more information. The terms of the MOU weren't completely available and hadn't been scrutinized the last time we had this vote.
But the most important thing, I think, that is different about this vote than some of the earlier votes is, thank God, we are in a cease- fire--a fragile one, a fragile one. And the cease-fire is a bit of an intermission where we get to step back--and we should step back--as Congress is engaged on the question of what is the next step.
This effort to cease hostilities is not coming in the midst of active back-and-fire kinetic action between the United States and Iran or Iranian allies. It is a fragile cease-fire, and it is interrupted. But we have stepped back from the most active phase of the war. That is a perfect time for Congress to step back and ask ourselves the question of what should the next chapter be, rather than allowing one man to make that decision.
In fact, it is interesting. I was thinking about this as I walked over this morning: What are the options right now? The options are either a negotiated peace deal or potentially returning to war.
If the Trump administration negotiates a deal that includes anything about the Iran nuclear program, they have to bring it to Congress pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Review Act that I helped coauthor about 10 years ago.
So in the event of diplomacy, the administration must come to Congress. If the administration wants more money for the war, they must come to Congress. They sent over a supplemental request last week. So if the administration has to come to Congress and engage us if diplomacy is the chapter, if they have to come to Congress and engage us if more dollars are needed, we shouldn't say: But you don't have to come to us if you just want to restart the war.
How odd would it be that they would need our permission for diplomacy and need our permission for dollars but not need our permission to start bombing again? I think that odd disharmony, that cognitive dissonance, demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers giving the power to declare war to Congress.
If you have to come to us for diplomacy and you have to come to us for money, you shouldn't be able to end-run us to initiate war on our own.
And so, after lunch, I will make the motion to pull up this House concurrent resolution. I am unaware of an earlier instance of this being done, but it is in accord with Senate procedure to pull up a House concurrent resolution and seek a vote on it.
And it is my hope that with the experience of these 100-plus days and the knowledge of the consequences and the magnitude of these issues to American families, Congress will stand and deliver on the oath we have taken that the Nation should not be at war unless Congress authorizes it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source