MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, "Below the Beltway," the comic collaboration of Gene Weingarten and Eric Shansby enters the new territory of children's books. But first, Congress and the threats posed to the United States by Islamic extremists far outside the beltway. Congress is currently debating how to authorize the use of military force in U.S. efforts to combat the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIU.S. Senator Tim Kaine offered up a proposal this week that would allow for airstrikes and for support to flow to moderate Syrian rebels. But it would limit the use of U.S. ground forces in these countries to rescue missions. And the authorization would sunset after a year. Joining us to explore what he sees at stake in this part of the world -- and what he sees at stake and how Congress crafts a response to it, is U.S. Senator Tim Kaine. He is a Democrat from Virginia. He joins us from studios at the U.S. Capitol. Senator Kaine, thank you for joining us.

SEN. TIM KAINEYou bet, Kojo. Good to be with you today.

NNAMDIIf you have questions or comments for Senator Tim Kaine, give us a call at 800-433-8850. You can send email to kojo@wamu.org or shoot us a tweet @kojoshow. You wrote in The New York Times yesterday that the current threat the Islamic State poses to the United States not only is a challenge to our security, but the process of combating that threat can be an opportunity to rebalance our constitutional principles. First, what is the current threat that ISIL, in your view, poses to the U.S.?

KAINEKojo, I think the ISIL threat, as evidenced by their gobbling up of territory, their horrific practices against women, religious minorities, their beheading of American journalists and British aid workers, they are a barbaric and violent extremist group. And they are also extremely well funded, now knocking over banks and selling oil to get revenue. And they pose a significant threat to obviously people in the region, other nations -- both immediate neighbors and European nations -- and they also pose a threat to the United States.

KAINEI think the threat is a very significant one. I don't think it's imminent. They're not going to attack the United States tomorrow. But they clearly have designs to hurt Americans and they'll do it if they can. And they're rapidly gaining the capacity to do so.

NNAMDIHow does the proposal you offer, offer the opportunity to rebalance our constitutional principles?

KAINEYou know, there are two really important issues here, Kojo. One is how we make the decision to initiate military action. And the second is, what action should be authorized against ISIL. The president, in his speech last Wednesday to the nation, laid out, here's what we should do about ISIL. Four basic pillars -- humanitarian aid, airstrikes, counterterrorism operations, and then arming ground forces in the region, to include the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and moderates in Syria. And those -- I think those are reasonable pillars.

KAINEBut the president also said he believes he has the authority to do that without Congressional approval. And I drastically disagree with the president on that. The president's power with respect to war is pretty clearly elaborated in Article 2 of the Constitution. And it's been understood since the framers drafted it to be a power of defense. The president can act to defend the nation from an imminent or actual attack. But the president really can't go on offense without Congress. Presidents since Thomas Jefferson have recognized that. Senator Obama recognized it as a candidate for president.

KAINEAnd when he said two weeks ago on "Meet the Press," it's time to go on offense against ISIL, that's where the need for Congressional authority kicks in. Many of my colleagues in Congress were willing to grant the president that unilateral power. I'm not. And so I've drafted a proposal to authorize force, along the lines the president suggested, but that also includes some key limitations. And I'm urging my colleagues that we need to take this up here in Congress.

NNAMDIIn case you're just joining us, our guest is U.S. Senator Tim Kaine. He is a Democrat from Virginia. We're inviting your calls at 800-433-8850. Senator Kaine, where do you see the key difference between what the president did in August, when he authorized airstrikes, and what he said he wanted to do last week when he addressed the country? Is there a significant difference between defense and offense in that situation?

KAINEKojo, sometimes the line can be a little bit fuzzy. When the president authorized airstrikes on the 8th of August, Congress was in recess. ISIL was moving with some momentum even toward Baghdad where the U.S. has an embassy presence. The president has the ability unilaterally to protect the embassy. We have consular officials in Erbil, in the Kurdish area of Iraq. And so he took initial steps that I think could fairly be characterized as defensive in nature.

KAINEBut at some point, the airstrike campaign started to change a bit. We acted to enable Iraqi ground forces to retake a dam in Mosul. There was no intelligence suggesting that that dam was going to be blown up. And even if it would have been, it was hundreds of miles away from U.S. personnel. At that point, the airstrikes started to be really, I think, part of a broader campaign to go on offense against ISIL. And that's what the president, in fact, said. Many of my -- so I have actually been saying since May of 2013, I don't think there is any current legal authority -- particularly the authorizations crafted by Congress in 2001 and 2002 -- that would allow America to engage in military action in Syria without additional Congressional authorization.

KAINEWhen the president spoke last Wednesday, a number of my colleagues have now joined me in that, notably the chairman of the foreign relations committee, Senator Menendez, who said, okay I heard what the president said about the mission. This is not a narrow defensive mission of short time duration. It's a long-term offensive mission against ISIL. And for that, you've got to have Congressional approval. And I think most in Congress are coming to that conclusion. And I think we will work in a bipartisan way with the president to provide a limited authority. But it has to be something that Congress is involved.

KAINEWe shouldn't abdicate that responsibility and allow unilateral executive to move forward. Because if we do, we will set a precedent for future operations. And I think it will be a precedent that we will regret.

NNAMDIJust to be clear here, Senator Kaine, you seem to be saying that on the merits of the case the president made, you agree that it's necessary to begin a more offensive phase in that part of the world in general or against ISIL in particular.

KAINEI do. I do. This is, you know, it's interesting, Kojo. I guess being a Virginian, you're always prone to cite Virginia examples. But when Thomas Jefferson was president, he was in the region fighting against, you know, confronting a terrorist organization of the day, the Barbary pirates that were interrupting American shipping in the Mediterranean, both commercial and military shipping. He had the power, as commander in chief, to order his navy to repel attacks once they started. He could do that all day long without Congress. But at some point he said, just repelling repeated attacks is not the right strategy. I need to go on offense and try to reduce this threat so we don't have to repel attacks.

KAINEAt that point, he said, if I'm going on offense, I've got to have Congress to do it. But I do think the president's basic pillars -- the four pillars he outlined -- are important. I support them. The authorization I've drafted authorizes them, but with some critical limitations -- for example, no ground troops. Some of the limitations are things that the president stated in his speech. But other limitations I've included are limitations, frankly -- lessons learned from 13 years of operating under two authorizations.

NNAMDII was about to say, what do you say are those painful lessons that we have learned in the wake of the military authorization enacted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks?

KAINELet me give you three that are reflected in the authorization I've drafted. The authorization crafted after 9/11 didn't have a geographic or temporal limitation on it. And so we are still fighting under a 2001 authorization in many places in the world. And it concerns me greatly that administration officials have said, well this authorization probably will enable us to continue to be at war for the next 25 years. I don't think that's what Congress intended when they voted on it in '01. So I put a geographic limitation in my authorization, Syria and Iraq. And I put a temporal limitation. The authorization would expire after one year unless Congress extends it.

KAINEA second limitation -- the administrations, both Bush and Obama administrations -- took the language from the '01 authorization, enabling action against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and created a second category administratively. We could also go after the perpetrators, al-Qaida or quote "associated forces." The administrative definition of associated forces has been so broad as to basically encompass almost anyone. And so in my authorization, I have a very narrow definition of who we are authorizing to be the target of military action, so that it doesn't morph and extend and become some kind of an all-purpose authority to go after anyone.

KAINEAnd then, third, I proposed the repeal of the 2002 Iraq authorization in my bill that I introduced yesterday, because I don't think we should have sort of dueling or repetitive or overlapping Iraq authorizations out there. And it's time to repeal the '02 Iraq authorization. That was drafted to get rid of the Saddam Hussein government. They've been long gone and we need to repeal that so that it's not used in a way that Congress never would have intended.

NNAMDIAllow me to go to the telephones. We'll start with Michael in Lake Ridge, Va. Michael, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

MICHAELHi. Thank you. You know, my concern is that this appears to be an authorization to declare a war on Syria and take military action against the Syrian government. Comments made by President Obama and also by Secretary Kerry yesterday and the day before, both talked about attacking the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. And the moderate rebels said they're going to team up with ISIL to attack the Syrian government. So and these 5,000 moderates trained in Saudi Arabia aren't going to be ready for a year. So I'm concerned that this is a way that President Obama's going to attack Syria without going to declare a war on Syria.

NNAMDISenator Kaine, how would your proposal limit what the president is able to do?

KAINEYeah, there is absolutely nothing in this authorization that would allow attack against the Syrian government. That's not what this is about. It is clearly focused on attacking ISIL. And I was at the hearing with Secretary Kerry yesterday and he made that plain as well. There are members on the foreign relations committee who would like to be able to arm folks to also wage action against the Syrian regime. And they were pressing Senator Kerry. Shouldn't they be able to go after the government of Bashar al-Assad? But Secretary Kerry was very plain about this. No, this is an effort that is against ISIL. My authorization makes that plain.

KAINEAnd there are actually, Kojo, some other senators have introduced authorizations as well, with similar limitations. I will say, to the caller's maybe broader point, the situation in Syria is much more complicated than in Iraq. You know, providing assistance to the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga in the Kurdish area, we have a very strong track record of working together with them.

KAINEThe situation in Syria is more difficult. And I think progress will be more difficult. But if we are trying to focus our energies on the defeat of ISIL, they use Syria as their basic HQ, they've erased the border, and if we confined our activities just to one side of the line, they would retract behind that border and continue to wreak havoc on Syrians and others.

NNAMDIYou mentioned that the situation in Syria is difficult -- difficult and complicated. What concerns do you have about our ability to identify and empower the rebels that it is in the U.S.'s interests to support. Some people have described the messiness that's developed in Syria as the bug magnet that's attracting extreme elements both in Syria and Iraq.

KAINEThere are extreme elements that are coming into Syria to support Bashar all-Assad -- Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There are extreme elements coming into Syria to oppose Bashar al-Assad. It is very, very difficult. But the U.S. and other nations have been working on this for about the last year. And there's some significant experience now in, you know, recognizing which groups – you know, we talk about moderate opposition -- frankly which groups will effectively battle against this ISIL threat.

KAINEAnd, Kojo, let me just say, why do anything in Syria at all? This is linked to the no ground troop limitation that's important -- no U.S. ground troop limitation. We need to see the region and people of the region standing up against this ISIL extremist violence threat. And if they do, the U.S. and western nations who also have something at stake should be supporters and allies. But it can't be a U.S. or western campaign against ISIL.

KAINEAnd so supporting the people of the region, whether it's again, the Kurds or Iraqis or Syrians who take the ISIL extremist threats seriously and want to defeat it, is what we should do. And what we can do. And U.S. ground troops -- there's no amount of U.S. ground troops that would be sufficient to do this if it is not the region itself standing up against this extremist threat. I guess the way to summarize is that the U.S. can't police a region that won't police itself.

KAINEThere are significant regional players, both in Iraq and Syria and in the neighborhood coming forward to say, we need to stand up against this existential threat. And I think it's important that we support them.

NNAMDIOne more question. It comes from Greg in Washington, D.C. You introduced this bill along with Senator John McCain of Arizona. Greg in Washington, I think, wants to know, well, Greg, speak for yourself, how far this bipartisanship will go.

GREGYeah, I'm quite interested. Hi, Senator Tim Kaine.

KAINEHey, John. (sic)

GREGLongtime fan from Virginia. This is Greg (word?) .

KAINEOh, Greg, oh, fantastic.

GREGYeah, I appreciate your leadership, once again, you know, trying to help imbed new rules in the gauge-ment game in the 21st century. I'm not sure -- I personally am comfortable with ignoring political boundaries, whether we like Syrians or, you know, whether we want to work with the Assad regime. But do you think this bipartisanship will continue into something substantial or will it just be kind of made into more political fodder the way things tend to go these days in Washington?

KAINEWell, good question. And actually, Greg, so there's three related efforts going on right now that just indicate how complicated the world is. The first is trying to craft a narrow authorization with respect to the president's proposed action against ISIL. And Senator McCain and I and others are working together on that. We all share the view that Congress needs to be involved, that there needs to be an authorization. We have some minor differences of opinion about how we draft it, but I think Senator Menendez will lead us in a process that will work that out.

KAINESecond, there is a bipartisan agreement in the Senate that we need to take the 2001 authorization passed in the days after 9/11 and significantly refine and narrow it. President Obama called for that in a speech at the National Defense University in May of 2013. Senators McCain and I and others are working on that.

KAINEThe third is a bill that Senator McCain and I introduced, which is to repeal the War Powers Act of 1973 which has proven unworkable to presidents and Congresses of both parties in the 41 years since it passed, and replace it with a version that we think is more workable. And our version does basically three things. It defines what war is to trigger consultation and voting requirements. That may seem obvious but when the framers drafted the constitution, it was states versus states. Now we're dealing with non-state actors, drones, cyber threats. So some functional definition of what is war in the 21st century.

KAINESecond, we create a consultation mechanism so that when a president says, I've consulted with Congress, we all know exactly what that means and we can tell whether the president has in fact done it or not. And third, we create voting requirements so that members of Congress can't dodge their responsibilities. People sometimes complain about wars being started by imperial presidents of all parties going back to the 1780s. But it's equally the case that Congress often wants to avoid their responsibility to cast these kinds of tough votes and let the president act, only to criticize later.

KAINEJohn McCain and I think Congress needs to be on the board before we initiate military action. Our servicemen and women deserve that degree of debate and effort to find consensus before we ask them to risk their lives.

NNAMDIGreg, thank you very much for your call. Tim Kaine is a member of the United States Senate. He's a Democrat from Virginia. Senator Kaine, thank you for joining us.

KAINEYou bet, Kojo. Good to be with you.

NNAMDIWe're going to take a short break. When we come back, "Below the Beltway," the comic collaboration of Gene Weingarten and Eric Shansby enters the new territory of children's books. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.