We have family serving in the military and many of those families have seen their loved ones deployed multiple times since 2001 These families want to know what each senator thinks about this important question you all amendment to the which has bipartisan sponsorship is very simple It States that no funds will be extended in a war with Iran or on Iranian soil except in Selfdefense unless con Ross takes the affirmative step of specifically authorizing those hostilities My colleague from Arkansas talked about lawyers dancing on the head of a pen as he tried to suggest that self defense was not a clearly defined term I think most of the colleagues who read the language will believe it's incredibly clear The President has the power to defend the nation from Amman and its act or ongoing attack without asking anyone for permission and that is specifically stated in our Solution there's no confusion about it There's no attempt to limit a president's power to defend the nation But if the President decides that we need to go on an offensive war against a sovereign country this amendment would suggest he could not do so unless he came to Congress Those voting for this amendment will say clearly that no war should be started unless Congress votes for it And those opposing the amendment will say clearly that it is okay for the President to go to war against Iran whenever and for whatever reason on his own Those who vote against this amendment in my view are essentially giving the President a Green light to wage war anywhere against anyone on his own and that is not a power that we should give to this President or any President Believe that in my six and a half years in the Senate there has only been one vote as serious as the vote we will cast tomorrow morning Why do I believe that work should not be started without a vote of Congress The Democratic leader outlined the clear constitutional history in this regard is Congress that declares war and the history and context of that provision in article one is very very plain at that time in the world in 1787 war was for the executive. It was for the King the Emperor the monarch the salt the pope but the drafters of the American Constitution wanted to dramatically change history in this And so that war for the United States of America should be a matter not for the executive to declare but instead for the people's elected legislative body to declare once declared the President as commander in chief needs to be that commander. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas, you don't need 535 commanders, but it is not up to the President to initiate or declare war constitutionally. It is clearly up to Congress But the reason we should vote for this isn't just because of the constitutional provision It is the value that underlies the constitutional provision Why did the framers put the question of war as a matter for the Legislature a congressional debate and vote Is what is necessary for the American public and Congress to fully understand the stakes to explain to the public and educate them. Why war is necessary and especially and most importantly, the debate and the vote by the legislative body is the evidence of support for the mission that American troops deserve If they're gonna be sent into harm's way where they could be killed or injured or see their friends Killed or injured I believe that it is the height of public immorality There could be nothing more immoral in the public space then don't order our troops into harm's way where they would risk injury and death If Congress is unwilling to consider and debate and vote on whether a war is in the National interest you have to go risk your life You have to go be with others and potentially be injured or killed, but we don't wanna have to vote on it Could anything be more immoral than that and so what this provision does is just say that if we're gonna be at a war with Iran and by example with any nation Congress should have the guts and the backbone to come here and cast a vote before we order our troops into harm's way Why is this debate important right now Well, we are in the Middle of discussing the National Defense authorizing act but I also want to point out two very powerful things one an event and want a statement that have occurred in the last week since many of us took the floor last wins On Thursday a week ago today President Trump ordered and then called off a missile strike against Iranian territory that would have been the start of a shooting war with Iran It was a missile strike in the sovereign nation of Iran our military and all reasonable people understood that that would have been responded to and so we were within 10 minutes President Trump says. He called off strike on Iran with 10 minutes despair We were within 10 minutes one week ago of being in a war And the second thing that happened is a few days ago The President gave an exclusive interview to the Hill saying I do not need congressional approval to strike Iran Congress is irrelevant I don't need to come to Congress the quote that the majority that the Democratic leader mentioned a few minutes earlier was the President said. It's good to keep them abreast of the situation but I'm not legally required to do so how Thing for the President who pledge at his inauguration to defend and support the constitution to not recognize that the article one branch and we're the article. One branch for a reason must be not just consulted with but beyond board with any war as expressed by their vote This President is holding the article one branch in contempt Will we gravel and accept that monumental disrespect or will we Insist that the President must follow the law for the record I believe that a war with Iran would be a colossal mistake It's cause would be laid significantly at our fee by the United States and the Trump administration tearing up a diplomatic deal tearing up over the objections or over the recommendations of the then Secretary of State Secretary of Defense National Security Advisor chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tearing it up over the recommendations of our allies Terry Over the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency we tore up a diplomatic deal and does raise the risk of an unnecessary war that would be catastrophic after 18 years of two wars in the Middle East both of which were we still have troops deployed We should not be fermenting encouraging Blundering toward rushing into a third war in the Middle East it would suck And resources away for more pressing priorities of our citizens bogging ourselves down in another war against the smaller weaker far away nation with divert our attention from acting firmly to counter our chief competitor China Furthermore, another war in the Middle East would represent another broken promise by this President just as he said that Mexico would pay for a border Wall just as he Promise not to cut the Medicaid program before supporting an effort to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and slash Medicaid The President criticize the Iraq war as a candidate and said he would end wars in the Middle East not expand or multiply them There are some in this body and I will give my colleague from Arkansas credit for having the courage of his convictions to come and state what he has stated on the floor there Some in this body and in the administration who have argued that a war with Iran would be a good thing or a necessary thing Some have even suggested that it would be an easy win Let them come to the floor of the Senate and make that argument in full view of the American public and let Congress debate and vote and then be held accountable for decisions we make about war as I conclude I wanna thank the majority leader for scheduling this vote and I Usually wanna thank the Democratic leader for firmly insisting that it must be held tomorrow We will all speak to a fundamental question about war, but also about this institution can President Trump take us to war with Iran without even coming to Congress I hope my colleagues will stand for the constitution We must provide assurance to our citizens and we especially must provide assurance to our troops that war is Based on the whim of this President or the whim of any President but it must be based instead on a clear vote following public debate by the people's elected Legislature and with that madam President I yield the floor Senator from New Mexico Thank you Madam President and and I very much appreciate being joined on the floor by Senator Kaine and Senator Merkley appreciate Senator Cane's very wise words I think all of us are here standing up to hold the President accountable We believe he should follow and obey the constitution So I rise today to call upon this body to do its duty to assume Constitutional responsibility and to make it clear that the President Cannot wage war against Iran without congressional authorization whether you are in favor of giving the President authorization or whether like me, you're opposed everyone in this chamber should vote in favor of our bipartisan amendment because a vote in favor is a vote to fulfill our sworn oath to uphold the constitution I appre That at long last the Senate will finally have this debate that we will finally take this vote because these matters of war and peace are among the most consequential responsibilities that fall to Congress These are the hard votes and we must step up to take them I'm proud to partner with Senators Kane, Paul, Merkley, Durbin, Murphy and Lee in this effort and to call upon Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities after years of abdicating our responsibilities on matters of war This entire body must stand up and show that we will not roll over for an unauthorized unconstitutional war We must pass this amendment this dangerous course with Iran began last May when the President unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement this hard fought Diplomatic achievement denied Iran. The nuclear material required to even begin work on a nuclear weapon since this administration turned away from diplomacy and resorted to maximum pressure to a maximum pressure campaign to box in Iran The risk of war has steadily risen just last week We were 10 minutes away from a strike on Iran 10 minutes from One nightmare of escalation in the Gulf this week, the President threatened Iran and I'm quoting his words here These are pretty strong words, he says. To run I threatened them with great and overwhelming force and he uses the word of Liberation that is not diplomacy That is a drum beat toward war without congressional approval Madam President Tensions are the highest they have been in many years and the risk of a costly miscalculation grows day by day just days ago, the President falsely claimed he does not need congressional approval to launch strikes against he wrong article. One section eight of the constitution could not be clear It is Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to declare War this is not a close call The founders placed this responsibility squarely on our shoulders the consequences of going to war or profound So this decision rests with the people's representatives Not one person not even one President It's time that Congress confront the administrations rejection of diplomacy our amendment It's funding for military action against Iran without congressional authorization It does not prohibit war altogether it prohibits and unconstitutional war a war that has not been authorized by Congress We must be accountable to the American people and to our men and women in uniform whose lives would be on the line Our soldiers are brave enough to face the danger of war if my friend In this chamber believe they should we we should be brave enough to be held accountable. For that decision Some have claimed that this amendment would prohibit the President from defending the United States against attack That is wrong. It's completely fault this amendment and the War Powers Act incorporated. As part of it allow the US to act in self defense The amendment clearly States that it shall not be interpreted and I'm in a quote from our amendment shall not be interpreted to restrict the use The United States on forces to defend against an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces It is explicit The US may defend itself against an attack by Iran The claim that the military's hands would be tied in the event of an emergency has no basis and Cannot be used as an excuse to vote against the amendment and I Heartened as Senator Kane was, and I'm sure Senator Merkley will will also say that I am heartened that Senator Mcconnell and the Republican leadership will finally allow debate and a vote on this amendment This is what the American people want and deserve over the years. Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily encroached upon congress's, war powers and Congress has tacitly allowed that encroachment I split I Up to President Obama when he threatened to attack Syria without authorization and so did many of my colleagues and I'm standing up again now because the administration's reckless actions have brought us to the precipice of war Mister Bolton and Secretary Pompeo failed strategy has led directly to this heightened tensions to the brink of war with no benefit to show with no Benefits to show for their tactics The administration is reimposed and tighten sanctions on Iran three times sanctions. We agreed not to impose if he run agreed not to develop nuclear capabilities Secretary Pompeo place a dozen conditions on negotiations and then withdrew them just this week at the same time that adviser Bolton claims we will talk with the Ram anytime President sanctions, the lead Democrat in Ron and tweets out his threat of obliteration shutting the door on any diplomatic overtures This Ping pong diplomacy, manufactured crisis and gold alone posture further diminish our world standing and credibility None of the signatories to the Iran Nuclear agreement, including our closest allies backs us and what we are doing this reckless Macy is dangerously reminiscent of the run up to war with Iraq But anywhere with Iran with its military capability proxy forces in a population of 80 million living in a geographically paralysis region would be more disastrous and more costly than a wrap And yet we continue to March up to the brink according to the President's tweet last week he stopped a strike against Iran that he had already ordered because he learned at the last minute that A hundred and 50 lives were at stake I know I am not alone in being deeply alarm at this decision making National security decision making process I know members on both sides of the aisle share my concerns We must assert our constitutional authority We must tell the President and affirm to the American people that we will assume our constitutional responsibility and now we must do So we must do so now before through Miscalculation mistake or misjudgment our nation finds itself and yet another endless war Adam President, I yield the floor Madam President Senator from Oregon our founders recognized that no decision carries more consequences than the decision of whether or not to go to war There were well familiar with the carnage in human lives and blood injuries treasure that our initial war of independence brought and as we stand here several hundred Later we recognize the wars in between the more than 400000 Americans died in World War two that more than 50000 Americans died in the Vietnam war that more than 4000 Americans died in the war in Iraq just some indication of the enormous impact and consequences of a decision to go to war So it was an issue that the founders struggled with in a Republic Where should this immense power rest Should it rest with one individual The President Or the consequences too great to have the judgement of a single person carry the decision to its completion And after intense debate after many arguments the founders became very clear that this power should never rest in the hands of a single person that it should be not just one body. But two bodies, the House and the Senate that should weigh in on the issue of war the consequences so profound could not leave it to the radio sink C or the the biases or the misjudgment of a single individual Light was in fact one of the defining arguments about the difference between a King and a President A King could make that decision with horrific consequences often for the people of the kingdom but not in the United States of America This is why it's so deeply embedded in our constitution in article one section eight under the enumerated powers of Congress Simply the words to declare war that power is invested in Congress not the President and the founders way in time and time and time again about this turning to James Madison father of the constitution He commented the constitution supposes what the history of All government's Denver straight that the executive is the branch of power, most interested in war and most prone to it It has been accordingly with studied care vested to the Legislature Went on the power to declare war, including the power of judging. The causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature the executive said. Madison has no right in any case to decide the question whether there is or not caused for declaring war as the father of our constitution that led to this document that best the power to declare war with Congress not the President George Washington the father of Nation said the constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a major This was a commander in chief Speaking this was a hero of the American revolution. Speaking this was the man most trusted to be. The first President of the United States wants to steer the course and make sure the presidency did not become a King ship and his conclusion Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have authorized such a major This is enormously at adds with the vision that are calling from Arkansas presented on the floor dismissing the role of Congress dismissing the constitution and instead saying let the President as commander in chief do what he will That was not the vision. George Mason of Virginia If you stand in DC you can look across the Potomac River and you can see a monument to George Mason and he made notes of the Constitutional convention and George Mason Remark that he was quote against giving the power of war to the executive because the President is not safely to be trusted with it That was the point that no one individual, no matter how wise not even a George Washington could be trusted with this decision and George Washington as President agreed with this completely the spite his expertise as a commander in chief it was not to be the judgment of one person Thomas Jefferson one of the most brilliant minds our country has ever produced and he commented We have already given in example referring to the Constitution One Effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him the dog of war lose from the executive the legislative So he's Many on the constitution and saying we have put a check on the dog of war by putting that power in the legislative body Not the executive Now Jefferson became a President and did he change his mind when he became President because his initial quote that I've just given you that's from night 1789 But later he's President of the United States and what did he think them He thought the same exact thing just as President Washington has Jefferson said considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided his message to Congress in 1805 He recognized that the constitution did are we going to recognize the constitutional vision Now there may be folks in this chamber who's simply disagree with the founders and say Congress is too complicated that the power to declare war the power to go to worship invested solely in the commander of Chief Well, then come and present a constitutional amendment on the floor of the United States Senate Cuz you took an oath to the constitution of the United States and that says that power rest in this body and if you wanna change the constitution then have the guts to come down here and propose doing so and I guarantee it will be roundly defeated because the wisdom of our founders that it is a mistake to give the power of war. One person is wise does stand the test of time Sander Hamilton Noted the following The Congress shall have the power to declare war the plain, meaning of which is that it is a peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress when the nation is at peace to change that into a state of war Alexander Hamilton exclusive duty of Congress the plain meaning of our constitution This viewpoint continued to carry the day far into the future Abraham Lincoln was speaking in 1848 and he said the provision of the constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated as I understand it That's Lincoln's words by the following reasons Kings had always been involving an impoverishing their people in wars pretending Generally it's not always that the good of the people was the object This are convention said. President Lincoln understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions and they the constitutional convention resolved so framed the constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us In the words of these great leaders of American Washington Hamilton may soon President Lincoln all point to the power and wisdom of putting the decision about war with the House and the Senate Not the President now, this resolution before us it says mister President There is no form going authorization to go to war against Iran it says Any authorization has to come after debate specifically on that topic and why is this because we have heard from the administration that they want to use the 2001 authorization for the use of military force and authorization, specifically about all cata in Afghanistan to I rise war with Iran Nothing could be more convoluted and that's why we need to stand up and say that is wrong That is not right Anyone who pays even just a modicum of tension knows that the resolution to take on all cata in Afghanistan is very different than going to war against a Shiite Islam nation of Iran But we have to say it because the administration has been trying to prepare the case saying this 2001 resolution somehow has a link the authorizers War and why are we so concerned at this moment? Why are we here on the floor in this debate Well, it's because the drums of war are beating loudly It's because of President has deployed the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike force to the golf to threaten Iran is because of President has replaced a squadron would be 52 bombers to be ready to bomb Iran Why are we caused concern when we have a National security adviser who has said No Agreement can ever Beach with Iran We have to bomb them when we have a Secretary of state who says no one 's ever stood up to Iran and we have to teach them a lesson or words to that effect and we have a President, a President who has proceeded to say any attack. Any attack will be met by great an overwhelming force, so envision these pre placed forces and the fact the Has declared that a section of the Iranian military the revolutionary Guard as a terrorist force add all that up and the president's talking about looking for a trigger to apply great an overwhelming force That's why we're here our response in proportion to defend a direct attack on the United States That's what the rise by the War Powers Act that is honored by the resolution that is before us the Utah Paul Cane amendment that is Worse, that's honored but the use of great, an overwhelming force of president's threatening that's war that has to come before this body and the President went on and he said in some areas overwhelming will mean obliteration So for any attack and we heard the Secretary States say if there is a Shiite force in a rack that we can tie to Shiites in Iran through some communication we'll consider that attack by Ron looking for a trigger to go to war at a President who says any act will be met with overwhelming force Not under our constitution You want that authority You come here You wanna change the constitution then come here and I say this My fellow senators you wanna change the constitution Bring your amendment to the floor of the United States Senate to change the constitution Because Constitution speaks clearly the President has no authority to apply overwhelming force obliterating force and conduct a war against Iran Make your case here Or honor the Constitution We're in a troubling and difficult time And I would like to see every member the Senate down here talking to each other about this. That's the gravity of the consequences Not a few members who are here to stand up for our constitution, the vision of wisdom in our constitution This is the time before there is that trigger in which the President responds with great and overwhelming force before he responds with a liberating force Now is the time to pass this amendment this amendment Put together in a bipartisan fashion that lays out the fundamental requirements of our constitution Fundamental requirements embraced by the founders fundamental requirements repeated and honored by the greatest presidents who have ever served our nation Let us not allow the vision of our constitution to be shredded Let us on Our responsibility when we took an oath in office to defend it and let us honor the wisdom of holding that debate on the floor Should the President ever asked us for such authorization to go to war against Iran Thank you Madam President Senator from Alabama Thank you Madam President and I want to first tell say how much I appreciate my colleagues Senator Merkley Senator King for their eloquent talks on an important issue of our time but let me also now rise in total frustration on a completely different issue but total frustration bafflement curious men quite frankly just angry and disappointed in this body I'm angry because we have turned our back for over 40 years on military families We've turned our backs Widows of the very men and women who have given their lives to protect this country to uphold our Democratic ideals and to make possible the very work that we are doing in the United States Senate The very work that we, as members of the Senate and as members of Congress are charged to do every day on behalf of the American people and particularly on behalf of veterans and their families About this body's refusal to bring up the military widows Tax Elimination Act refusal to bring it up for a single