podcasts. the c-span now app is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. >> where are you going? how far do you want to go? and how fast do you want to get there? now we are getting somewhere. so let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. midco supports c-span as a public service along with these

other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, the virginia democratic senator tim kaine, a member of the armed services and foreign relations committee, talks about his resolution requiring congressional approval before the 12th administration goes to war with iran. this is just under a half hour. mr. kaine: mr. president, it is a late hour with few folks on the floor to talk about the most serious issue we could ever talk about on the floor of the united states senate, the prospect that america may soon be in a war. there's no part of the constitution that's more important than the article 1 provisions making plain that the united states should not be at war without a vote of congress. and yet the news of the day suggests that we are potentially on the verge of a war with iran. when i was elected to the senate

in 2012, having served as a governor from 2006 to 2010 during a tremendous upsurge in the wars, i visited our troops in the green zone in baghdad and afghanistan. i went to the deployments and the homecomings, the withent to the wakes and the funerals, and i told myself when i came to the senate that if i ever had the chance to stop in nation from getting into an unnecessary war, i would do everything i could to stop us from getting into a unnecessary war. i happen to believe that the united states engaging in a war against iran, a third war in the middle east since 2001, would be a catastrophic blunder for this country. i think there are some in this body who have a different point

of view than me on that point, but i think we should all be able to agree that the fundamental constitutional principle that says we shouldn't be in a war if congress doesn't have the guts to debate it and vote on it, we should all, having taken an oath to the constitution, at least support the principle that war is something that should be for congress to declare. mr. president, just recently, right before i walked on the flurox "the new york times" published this article. and i'm going to read this to demonstrate the imminence of the threat that this country faces. the article, "the new york times," dated today, iran is preparing missiles for possible retaliatory strikes on u.s. bases, officials say. and i will i would just read the first few paragraphs. iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on u.s. bases in the

middle east, should the united states join israel's war against the country. according to american officials who have reviewed intelligence reports. fears of a wider war are growing among american officials as israel presses the white house to intervene in its conflict with iran. if the united states joins the israeli campaign and strikes fordow, a key nuclear facility, the iranian-backed militia will resume strikes in the red sea. forces in iraq and syria would probably try to attack u.s. bases there. other officials said in the event of an attack, iran would attack american warships in the persian gulf. commanders put american troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the united arab emirates, jordan, and saudi arabia.

the united states has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the middle east. i met the father of an apache helicopter pilot currently deployed in syria yesterday. finally, from the article, two iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack u.s. bases in the middle east starting with those in iraq, if the united states joins israel's war. we stand tonight as close to the potential initiatings of a third war in the middle east, the united states against iran, as we have been during my time in the senate. and so yesterday morning when the senate came into serbsing i announced and then i -- into session, i announced and then i followed up with the filing of a war powers resolution in this resolution, a privileged resolution that by my clock will mature and be subject to a vote on this floor because of its privileged status on -- a week

from thursday. ten days from the filing of such a motion, even by a single senator, the senate is required to take this matter up for an up-or-down floor vote about whether or not war should happen without a vote of congress. a little bit about the constitution. many in here have heard my speak about this over the years, but -- about the constitution, the framers of the constitution grappled with the question of how war should be dealt with and they grappled with the question in a more unusual way. -- in a most unusual way. in the constitution of 1787, the article 1 power is the congressional, the legislative power, and the article 2 power is the executive power. and the framers of the constitution split war powers into a legislative responsibility and an executive responsibility. the legislative responsibility

is clear -- congress declares war. it's in article 1. the executive responsibility is to be the commander in chief. once congress, 535 people have declared war, you don't need 535 commanders in chief. that would lead to chaos. so a war once declared by the people's elected body then gets handed to a president who as commander in chief is responsible for executing on that declaration. now, the framers of the constitution did understand one thing about the president's power, which is the president as commander in chief should defend the nation. the president always has the ability to defend the united states without asking congress' permission. back in 1787, congress might adjourn and ride horseback back to vermont. what if the united states was attacked? you couldn't wait for all of congress tomorrow back to enable the united states to defend itself, and so a president has the inherent power under article 2 to defend the united states

without asking for permission, but it's been the understanding since the very beginning of this republic that if it's more than defending the united states, if it's going on offense in any way, congressional authorization is needed. it's so rare. in other countries and in a other times, war has been for the executive. it's been for the king. it's been for the emperor. it's been for the monarch. it's been for the czar. it's been for the sultan. but in the united states, we made a different choice. that choice was described most eloquently in a letter from the main drafter of the constitution, james madison, to president thomas jefferson. actually, he was not yet president. this letter is dated april 2, 1798. and james madison described what were they getting at when they vested the power to declare war

with congress. and here's what james madison wrote. our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates -- that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war. and most prone to it. our constitution has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war with the legislature. other countries don't do this. but the framers of our constitution in 1787 decided we're going to be different. before we send troops in harm's way, where they could be killed, injured, before we're going to send troops into harm's way in war, we want to see the people's elected bodies, both houses, have a debate about what the

stakes are and whether we should force our troops into harm's way, potentially lose their lives. and that debate will be in full screw of the american public. -- full view of the american public. so the american public can understand what's at stake and n they can call their representatives or write a letter and tell them what they think about whether war is necessary and whether the sacrifice we ask of our troops should be the ultimate sacrifice that we are often asking of them. -- in war. and that's been the constitution since 1787. the constitution has been amended probably in the 25 or 26 amendments, that has new before amended. that has never been amended. in 1974, congress grappled with a challenging problem and passed the war powers resolution of 1974. what was the problem? the problem in 1974 was this, a president began war without telling congress.

1974, we were in the midst of the vietnam war, and congress did know that and congress had passed some legislation at least appropriating funds for it and somewhat authorizing it during the johnson administration. but president nixon, congress knew about the war in vietnam obviously. there was a draft, 56,000 americans were killed in that war. but president nixon, without informing congress, extended the >> president nixon started bombing cambodia, it was called the secret bombing of cambodia, a new country that had not been covered by war authorizations. and so congress stepped up and acted and passed the war powers resolution of 1974, and that resolution, mr. president, did a number of things. it established some protocols for when the president initiates military action providing notice to congress so that there can't be a secret war, giving congress some ability once notice is provided to try to withdraw notice if it thinks that the war

is ill advised. but the war powers resolution also did something else, it gave the power to even one member of congress, one senator or one house member, if a president initiates war or is on the verge of initiating war. the war powers resolution gave to one senator, one congressman the ability to file a resolution to stop a war before it starts, or to stop a war once started. and the war powers resolution over time has made that a privilege motion, meaning it can bypass committee and be brought up on the floor of the senate for a vote within an expeditious period of time. a privilege motion is one that sort of elbows everything else out of the way because congress has judged that the matter is so important that it should take precedence over normal committee

proceeding and it should be considered in a prompt fashion. it's a simple majority vote, not subject to filibuster. it can't be buried in a committee, it has to be debated on the floor. it's amendable, it can be amended. but as long as you meet the criteria, the privileged criteria you were entitled to try to stop a war before it starts. the criteria that you have to meet, mr. president, to have the privilege are two. one, hostilities between the united states and another nation have to be underway or they have to be eminent. that has to be the case. you can't just say i want to stop a war that no one has contemplated and nothing is happening. you have to demonstrate imminence. and you also have to show that there is no existing

congressional authorization authorizing the united states to be at war with iran. that second criteria has been met. we had a similar resolution on the floor a few years ago following the u.s. strike that killed the iranian military leader -- and the acknowledgment was that there was no current congressional authorization authorizing war against iran. so the question is, is the eminence standard met? and i would argue that it clearly is. the u.s. is already using u.s. weaponry to knock down iranian missiles. that's more than eminence, that's actual kinetic hostility. the united states is being urged to enter the war. the united states is moving military assets into the region and withdrawing diplomats from the region.

the iranians are acknowledging that we have plans to go after u.s. troops in the area. since congress clearly wanted to file such a motion before a war begins, i believe the eminence standard is clearly met in this case with actual kinetic activity between u.s. weaponry and iranians. no u.s. war against iran without a congressional vote. let me answer a couple of questions about the resolution that i filed yesterday. first one about self-defense, what if iran does take action

against the united states, the homeland or a u.s. base in the middle east or a u.s. consulate in the kurdish area of iraq. what if iran takes action against the u.s. the answer is pretty straightforward under the constitution, the president can defend the united states. and the president doesn't need congress to do that. so if there is an iranian attack on the united states, the president can and has said he will, and i would strongly support him, as i know everyone in this body would, to defend u.s. interest against iranian attack. so the self-defense question is mentioned in the resolution. the resolution says nothing in this resolution will block the ability of the u.s. to take legal action to defend itself and that is clearly contemplated by article 2. the second question is what about the u.s. helping israel defend itself. mr. president, i've been here since january of 2013. i have voted for every israel

defense package that's ever been before this body, and there have been many. israel receives more defense aid from the united states than any other nation, year after year after year, with my support. and i've done more than vote for israel defense aid. i've whipped votes to make sure that we found enough aid for israel. we passed a supplemental bill in this body that had billions of dollars for israel in the aftermath of the horrific attacks on israel by hamas on october 7th. the defense aid the u.s. provided enabled us to knock down iranian drones and missiles. that was a good thing. had those drones and missiles landed in israel, they would have not only killed and wounded tons of civilians, but they would have led to escalation in the region that would have been

unhelpful for all countries in the region. so i stand strong for israel's right to defend itself. and i stand strong for the united states in providing israel's support so that they can defend itself. but that's a different question. that's a different question than whether the u.s. should go to war with iran. in my view, there's no compelling security reason for the u.s. to go to war with iran. the last question i want to ask and reflect upon, mr. president, before concluding is this, what about diplomacy, what about diplomacy. the pages are here and you have a lot of time on the floor. sometimes there are speeches, sometimes there aren't. i imagine you've looked a lot at this room and what's in the room and one of the things that you notice is in the panels all around the room, the blue panels is the seal of the united states.

that seal of the united states was designed and embraced by the united states in 1782. the seal of the united states is also in the skylight in the ceiling of the senate chamber. and that seal has essentially been constant since 1782. there's a seal of the president of the united states that's changed a little bit. but the seal of the united states that congress has used has been constant since 1782. one thing very notable about the seal is the eagle and two claws is holding the arrows of war and the olive branches of peace. but since the very beginning of this republic, the eagle's face has been turned to the olive branches of peace. and it was designed that way to send the symbol that the united states always prefers peace, always prefers diplomacy and only uses war as a last resort when diplomacy fails.

without having to bomb them, without having to kill civilians, without having to sas nate scientists. the united states together with owe nations used the power of congressional sanctions, congress did this well, to leverage an agreement whereby iran agreed. and in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first page of the agreement, iran reaffirmed that it would "never seek to purchase, acquire or develop nuclear weapons." and in the body of that agreement, iran agreed to a whole series of limitations upon nuclear research, nuclear activity, the percentage of enriched uranium it was allowed

to have. and also iran agreed to the most comprehensive inspection regime of any nation on the planet overseen by the international atomic energy agency to insure that they were meeting their requirements that they would never seek to purchase, acquire nuclear weapons and that they would abide by the limits on centrifuges -- the international atomic energy association said the agreement was, working. the allies and adversaries, russia and china were part of this deal. as were the u.k. and france and germany. those who worked on the deal said the agreement was working. it wasn't turning iran from a bad actor to a good actor, it wasn't stopping all of iran's behavior, but it was limiting the very nuclear program that is

now trying to be bombed out of existence. we had an agreement that was working. president trump became president in january of 2017 and he said "i don't like the agreement that president obama did, i want to get out of it." president trump's own cabinet, his secretary of defense jim mattis said don't get out of this agreement, it's working. his secretary of state rex tillerson, don't get out of this agreement, it's working. h.r. mcmaster, his national security adviser, a former general, don't get out of this agreement. it's working. for god's sake, we've used diplomacy just as we're supposed to by referring peace and diplomacy first to deprive iran of a path to a nuclear weapon. shouldn't we prefer diplomacy? rather than putting at risk the life of american troops, the 40,000 troops who were in the middle east. so what happened to the diplomatic agreement? president trump started to talk

about abandoning it. i wrote a piece in time magazine in 2017 and i said if you abandon this agreement when it's working, what will iran do? they'll go back to developing nuclear weapons. because if the u.s. backs out of it, they will as well. if you abandon this agreement, north korea will never do a nuclear deal with the united states because why do a deal with the united states if the united states is going to abandon the deal even when it's working? president trump didn't listen to me, he didn't listen to his secretary of state, he didn't listen to his secretary of defense. he didn't listen to a lot of people in his administration, he tore the deal up. and mr. president, what a tragedy. you have israeli civilians who have been killed in the iranian missile attacks who have nothing to do with the military. and iranian civilians who have

been killed in missile attacks that have nothing to do with the military. they would be alive today and 40,000 u.s. troops in the region would be safe today if we had decided to act in accordance with our values and put diplomacy first and prefer peace over war. that's water under the bridge.

then the troops go into war knowing that the civilian leadership in this country decided that stakes are sufficient to ask people to make the ultimate sacrifice. but how dare we, how dare we. i say this as the father of a

united states marine. how dare we ask people to make the ultimate sacrifice if we don't have the guts to have a debate and decide whether a war is in the interest of this country. i know what the american public thinks about this, there's a poll that was released today and this is completely consistent with what i've heard from virginians and virginia is one of the most pro military states in this country. i'm on the armed services committee, 1 out of every 8 virginians is a veteran. that's not 1 out of every 8 adults, that's one out of every 8 virginians is a veteran. you have active duty, the guard, the reserve, the civilian dod and the military contractors and their families. we train all the marine officers in the world. we have the biggest ship building enterprise in the world. we have the pentagon, the largest military office in the world. we've been the site of war, battles on u.s. soil more than

any state in this country in virginia, revolution war, civil war, the attack on 9/11 at the pentagon. we are as pro military state as there is. but i can tell you this, virginians do not believe the united states should be in another war in the middle east, neither do americans. a poll today suggests 16% of americans think the u.s. military should get involved in a conflict between israel and iran. 16%. 60% say we should not, 24% are not sure. we need to have this debate in front of the american public. let them watch us debate the stakes of this. z and it might be that colleagues in this body or in the house think a war with iran is a good idea. let them put a war authorization on the table. let's debate that. let's debate that in front of

virginians and californians and hear what our constituents have to say. let's debate that in the full view of people who's spouses are in the military or who's kids are in the military. let's have that debate in front of them and hear what they think before we cast a vote. they would be one of the most serious votes that you ever cast on the floor of a body like this. but we should not allow a war of the magnitude of this to begin with congress hiding from the responsibility that was put on congress' shoulders in 1787. i will be asking my colleagues to support my simple resolution as early as next week, no war without a vote of congress. i will be asking my colleagues to support it and uphold the oath we've all taken to support the constitution that

established that most unusual principle, most unique principle that is part of what makes this >> in a nation divided, a rare moment, this fall, c-span presents cease fire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins, and a town where partisan fighting prevails, when table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground. this fall, cease fire, on the network that does not take sides, only on c-span. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >>