[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1000-S1002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         War Powers Resolution

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week the Senate concluded the 
impeachment proceeding. I heard one of my colleagues say it is the most 
serious thing that the U.S. Senate has the constitutional authority to 
do. That argument can be made, but I would disagree.
  I think the most serious thing we are assigned under the Constitution 
is the declaration of war because, you see, it isn't just a matter of 
the political fate of any individual; it is the matter of the lives of 
many good people in America who serve in our Armed Forces, who may be 
in danger if we decide to go to war. Even under the best circumstances, 
a quick and effective war can lead to the deaths of brave and innocent 
Americans who are simply serving their country. That is why the 
comments made by the majority leader this morning need to be responded 
to.
  His suggestion that Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution is a 
mistake, I think, really ignores the obvious. It has been 18 years--
almost 18 years--since Congress and the Senate had an active debate 
about the United States engaging in war. I remember that debate in 2002 
very well because it was a debate that consumed the attention of the 
Senate, the House, and the Nation over whether we would invade Iraq and 
whether we would invade Afghanistan.
  Most of us remember the argument made by the Bush administration for 
the invasion of Iraq. We were told there were weapons of mass 
destruction in that country that could threaten the

[[Page S1001]]

neighbors of Iraq, our allies, and even the United States. Over and 
over again we heard that phrase, ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 
``weapons of mass destruction.''
  I was serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time. I 
remember the classified testimony behind closed doors. I had serious 
doubts in my mind as to whether they had established that weapons of 
mass destruction actually existed and whether authorizing a war meant 
we would just use that as a device to force Iraq into better conduct or 
we would actually invade their country.
  As a consequence, I joined 22 other Senators in voting against the 
invasion of Iraq, which we voted on the floor of the Senate in 2002. 
Twenty-two Democrats and one Republican all voted against that invasion 
of Iraq. Obviously, we did not prevail. A majority gave that authority 
to President George W. Bush, and the invasion was underway. I can still 
remember it.
  I can remember the unfolding events as our troops arrived, made their 
impact on that nation, and eventually took control of Iraq.
  Then the search was on for the weapons of mass destruction, which led 
to our invasion of Iraq. The search continued for days and weeks and 
months without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was a 
farce. It was a fraud on the American public. Almost 5,000 Americans 
lost their lives because of our invasion of Iraq, but the premise, the 
pretense that led to that invasion was misleading information from the 
administration. But at least I will say this: There was a debate. There 
was a vote on the floor of the Senate. Did anyone at that time believe, 
18 years ago, that we were voting for a war in Iraq that would continue 
for 18 years?
  On the invasion of Afghanistan, the argument was made to convince me 
and virtually every Member of Congress that the parties responsible for 
the tragedy and terror of 9/11 were somehow camped in Afghanistan, and 
we needed to go after ISIS and all those responsible for that 9/11 
invasion of the United States. I voted for that, but I have to say as 
well, there wasn't a single Senator or Member of the House who really 
believed that 18 years later, we would still be at war in Afghanistan. 
Yet we are.
  The President is now talking about removing more troops from 
Afghanistan. We will see. We have heard these promises before, but 
perhaps it will lead to such a decision by the administration.
  The point I am getting to is, the Kaine War Powers Resolution--I see 
Senator Kaine has come to the floor--really addresses the most 
fundamental question of our constitutional authority and responsibility 
to declare war. As Senator Kaine says in this resolution, which I am 
happy to cosponsor, Congress has the sole power to declare war under 
article I, section 8, clause 11, of the U.S. Constitution.
  When I heard Senator McConnell come to the floor this morning and 
argue against the Senate stepping forward and asserting its 
constitutional authority, I wondered, how does he explain in the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky that we are still engaged in a war 18 years 
after there was any vote for an authorization for use of military force 
in Iraq and Afghanistan?
  The larger question Senator Kaine and I tried to raise in this 
resolution is, What does this mean in terms of our future relationship 
with Iran and their neighbor, Iraq? We know we have had a rocky and 
contentious relationship with that country. We know they have engaged 
in acts of terrorism that cost American lives. There has been tension 
between our countries for decades. We know that full well.
  President Obama tried to at least bring some sanity to the 
relationship by limiting the ability of the Iranians to develop nuclear 
weapons. He felt, I felt, and most Americans felt that was a step in 
the right direction, to take the nuclear weapons out of the hands of 
Iraq so that even if they are engaged in conduct we find reprehensible, 
it would not reach that horrible level of a nuclear confrontation.
  I thought the President was right. I supported President Obama's 
efforts to develop this inspection mechanism where international 
inspectors would come into Iran and see if they were developing weapons 
and report to the world.
  We engaged countries around the world to join us in this effort to 
stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. It was an incredible 
coalition that included Russia and China and the European nations that 
joined with us to impose this limitation of nuclear weapons in Iran. I 
thought it was a move in the right direction to have this kind of 
international support.
  Yet, when President Trump took office, sadly, he kept his promise to 
eliminate that nuclear control agreement between the United States, 
Iran, and the other parties. By eliminating it, he basically gave 
permission to the Iranians to continue development of nuclear weapons. 
Yet he warned the Iranians that if they did, there would be a price to 
pay.
  This is the very reason why this resolution by Senator Kaine is 
relevant and why we need to consider what the next step will be, 
because if we are going to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear 
weapons--and I pray they will not--how are we going to do it and how 
much force will we use in response? Will it be authorized by the 
Constitution and by Congress?
  I listened to Senator McConnell this morning, and he has basically 
said to do nothing. Do nothing. Don't assert the constitutional 
authority of the Congress under the Constitution when it comes to any 
declaration of war against Iran or any future military endeavors. He 
described this as a one-off situation, a one-off use of force that we 
have currently seen in the targeting of General Soleimani. Perhaps it 
was, but we don't know the answer to that. When it happened a few weeks 
ago, there was real uncertainty about what would follow, and I suppose 
that uncertainty is still here to this day.
  This morning, the majority leader said that he thought the 
impeachment effort that came to the Senate over the last week would not 
have occurred if we had been patient, and he said this is another 
example of impatience where we are setting up this constitutional 
responsibility of the administration.
  Well, I disagree with him on two counts. If Senator McConnell is 
counseling patience, patience in an impeachment trial would certainly 
have involved evidence, documents, and witnesses. Yet he was impatient 
to get it over with without any evidence coming before the Senate.
  I also would say that patience is a good virtue when it comes to most 
of life's experiences, and it certainly is if there is a prospect of 
war.
  What Senator Kaine is doing is asserting the authority of Congress to 
step up and be party to discussions about whether we move beyond the 
current situation to one that involves troops or any type of invasion 
of territory in Iran.
  I see Senator Kaine is on the floor, and I will defer to him in a 
moment, but I will tell you this before I sit down: As long as I have 
been a Member of the House and Senate, I have felt that Congress has a 
responsibility under the Constitution to declare war. It is a 
responsibility that most Members of Congress talk about a lot but, 
frankly, don't want to face. They don't want to be on the record for or 
against war for fear they will guess wrong in terms of certain foreign 
policy decisions.
  Regardless, I think the Framers of our Constitution understood full 
well that if we are going to ask American families to potentially 
sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters in combat, in a war, 
they should have a voice in the decision on going to war. That is what 
this article in the Constitution provides--a voice for the U.S. public 
that comes through the Congress as to whether we are going to engage in 
a war. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a situation like today, 18 years 
after an authorization of use of military force--and part of it under 
false pretenses--continuing a military effort that was never truly 
authorized.
  I support Senator Kaine's effort. I am glad it is a bipartisan 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler).
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise briefly to thank my colleague. I 
am actually scheduled to talk on this topic later this afternoon, but I 
wanted to come and hear Senator Durbin today. I appreciate his effort. 
He has been a

[[Page S1002]]

powerful advocate of this principle that we don't stand in 
contradiction of this President or any President when we stand for the 
proposition that Congress should do its job under article I of the 
Constitution, and I applaud my colleague for his strong support.
  I will take the floor later today to talk about the bipartisan 
resolution he has just described.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.