[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S810-S811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Authorization for Use of Military Force

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when the Constitution was written, there 
were some fundamental principles which were included, and one of them 
said that any declaration of war in the United States had to have the 
approval of the American people through their elected representatives 
in Congress. It was an awesome responsibility and an important one. I 
think it was the right responsibility given to the people through their 
elected representatives.
  After World War II, there were several engagements by the American 
military without such declaration of war. Those were, of course, 
controversial and debated, but I am sure you recall and I do, too, 
October of the year 2002, when this Senate was called on, with the 
House of Representatives, to consider the invasion of Iraq and the 
authorization of use of military force for that purpose.
  We may have forgotten by now, 20 years later, but I remember very 
vividly the fearsome national debate over whether this Nation, having 
been hit by 9/11, needed to invade Iraq.
  The rationale was weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq, 
threatening not only nations in the Middle East, which were our friends 
and allies, but even threatening the United States of America.
  That threat, weapons of mass destruction, was beaten into our heads 
day after day. But many of us were skeptical, and the vote came on the 
floor of the Senate, I recall, in October of 2002. It happened late at 
night. And at the end of the day, there were 23 of us--1 Republican and 
22 Democrats--who voted against that authorization for the use of 
military force in Iraq.
  I look back on it, as I am sure others do, as one of the most 
important votes

[[Page S811]]

that I ever cast. It was not only a decision about going to war, but it 
was a false argument that weapons of mass destruction were threatening 
anyone.
  After invading and after making the commitment of the American 
military force, along with our allies, no weapons of mass destruction 
were ever found in Iraq. It was a lie perpetrated by those who wanted 
to drag the United States into the Middle East for a long-term 
commitment and a dubious threat to our country.
  The repeal of this authorization of use of military force does not 
mean the United States has become a pacifist nation. It means that the 
United States is going to be a constitutional nation, and the premise 
of our Founding Fathers will be respected.
  If there is cause for us to use military force in the future, we 
should properly follow that Constitution and let the American people 
have their own voice in this process through their elected 
representatives in Congress. I am cosponsoring and fully support 
removal of this authorization of use of military force and believe it 
is consistent with the vote many of us cast in 2002 against that 
premise.