[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S812-S814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Authorization for Use of Military Force

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, the Founders of our country understood the 
dangers of concentrating military power in the hands of a single 
individual.
  They had seen how dangerous this can be, thanks to their experience 
with King George III. In fact, the specific charges against the King in 
our Declaration of Independence, as so many know, lay out ``a long 
train of abuses'' by the military.
  When it came time to draft the Constitution of the United States, the 
Framers had to strike a balance between giving the President the 
flexibility to respond to attacks and imminent threats and safeguarding 
against military adventurism, so they gave Congress--they gave this 
body--the power to declare war.
  The practices of our early Presidents recognized the distinction 
between defensive military action--over which the President has 
control--under Article II of the Constitution and offensive operations, 
which must be approved by Congress in advance.

  Fast forward to today; this process has broken down. And for the last 
three decades, this body has often neglected what is arguably its most 
important responsibility.
  I think many Americans will be surprised to learn that these 
authorizations for use of military force--or AUMFs--especially the 1991 
Gulf war resolution, are still on the books.
  Today, these are, in the words of my friend Tim Kaine, who joins me 
on the floor today, ``zombie resolutions.'' They have fulfilled their 
purpose, and now they should be removed from our law.
  Importantly, the repeal of the 1991 and 2002 resolutions would affect 
no current military operations. So the issue for us to consider is both 
what these AUMFs actually do authorize and what they could be used to 
authorize in the future.
  It has been well over a decade since any administration has cited the 
2002 AUMF to authorize any military action; however, leaving these 
authorities on the books creates an opportunity for abuse by the 
executive branch and bypasses Congress on the most important issue we 
consider as a body, which is how and when to send our men and women in 
uniform into harm's way.
  On the topic of Iran as it relates to this effort, I share the views 
of so many of my colleagues on the need to counter Iran. I really do. 
But reimagining a more than 20-year-old authorization that was passed 
to combat a totally different enemy is not the way to do it.
  Practically, repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs is very important 
because of the message that we send to our partner Iraq and to our 
other partners in the region and beyond.
  Let us be clear. Saddam Hussein is dead, and we are no longer worried 
about the threat posed by Iraq, as stated in this AUMF, which we 
propose repealing.
  Iraq has faced pressure from Iran for the past 20 years. The presence 
of the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs has not changed that. Going forward, as Iraq 
continues to face Iranian coercion and violence,

[[Page S813]]

we must increase our resolve to stand with them as partners, not as our 
enemy, and repealing these authorizations would help us do just that.
  This legislation is the rare issue that brings together supporters of 
all political persuasions. It doesn't fall on party lines. It certainly 
doesn't fall on ideological or philosophical or geographical lines.
  In addition to bipartisan congressional support from across the 
political spectrum, this important effort has earned the support of a 
number of outside groups. Just a few of them are the American Legion, 
Concerned Veterans for America, Heritage Action, and FreedomWorks.
  Later this morning, we will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed 
to this important bill. We don't need to debate extensively whether or 
not we even proceed to consideration; therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote 
as we work together to reclaim these important authorities and arrest 
the trend of giving away our war powers to an unchecked Executive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and then 
Senator Menendez be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the 
opening of the first vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, to my colleague from Indiana, I am so glad 
to be on the floor with you as we approach a most historic vote, a vote 
that has not been conducted in the Senate since 1971, a vote to repeal 
a war authorization.
  We will start the first procedural steps to formerly end the Iraq 
war. Right now, we still have not one but two active war authorizations 
against the Government of Iraq that is no longer an enemy, but, in the 
Biblical phrase, we have beaten the sword into a plowshare. Iraq is now 
a strategic partner of the United States.
  The bill that Senator Young and I have worked on in close 
coordination with other colleagues would repeal both authorizations. It 
is a clean and simple bill, barely a page long. It has attracted 
bipartisan support, as my colleague mentioned, not only in the Senate 
and House but from stakeholder groups who care about Americans' 
military national security and the health and fate of our troops and 
veterans and their families. It is a very, very broad ideological 
spectrum of America that support this bill. It is a rare coalition, and 
it speaks to how painfully evident it is that the repeal of these 
authorizations is long, long overdue.
  This Sunday, March 19, marks the 20th anniversary of the U.S. 
invasion of Iraq in March of 2002. That war ended 12 years ago. The 
Persian Gulf war of 1991, Operation Desert Storm, ended 30 years ago.
  I want to thank my friend from New Jersey, the chair of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, for his longstanding 
support for this repeal effort. I want to thank my colleague from 
Indiana for partnering with me for years and his indefatigable effort 
to move us to this day. I also want to acknowledge the ranking member 
of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, who does not support 
my bill, who voted against it in committee, but who has worked in a 
cooperative way on the committee both in the 117th Congress and in the 
118th Congress to make sure that this bill would be heard, that there 
would be a robust process for amendments in committee, and now that it 
can be heard on the floor.
  The discussion over Congress's role in determining how and when the 
United States utilizes its military power--having that discussion--is 
so important, maybe even more important than ultimately how people vote 
on this bill, because, too often, the article I branch has deferred on 
matters of war, peace, and diplomacy to the article II branch, to the 
executive, even though these powers are some of the most specific and 
somber powers granted to Congress in article I of the Constitution. 
Congress must exercise our article I authority over war, peace, and 
diplomacy, and that is what this bill and this debate is about.
  I think we need to repeal the Iraq war authorizations, first to 
recognize reality: An enemy that we were trying to push out of Kuwait 
in 1991, an enemy whose government we voted to topple in 2002, that 
enemy no longer exists. Iraq, today, is an American security partner of 
incredible importance. Defense Secretary Austin just visited Iraq last 
week, had productive meetings with the new Prime Minister, Prime 
Minister al-Sudani.
  Those meetings included Iraq's request that we stay--we have about 
2,500 troops in Iraq right now--and work with them to counter ISIS and 
other nonstate terrorist threats that threaten not only Iraq but other 
nations in the region. Iraq is asking us to stay so we can help them 
check Iranian aggression in the region.
  Secretary Austin talked about the value of this strategic partnership 
with Iraq. Iraq is no longer a force for chaos. Iraq is now a force for 
regional stability, and the United States is their partner of choice. 
Why would we want two war authorizations against a nation that has 
become a partner of choice?
  Our servicemembers had the courage to put their lives on the line, 
and everyone in this Chamber knows families, knows servicemembers who 
served in Iraq, who were injured in Iraq. Many of us know families of 
those who were killed in Iraq. They had the courage to do their job. 
How dare we, as Congress, not have the courage to simply say, after 20 
years: This war is over; the job is done.
  This is partly a way of thanking those who have borne the battle here 
at home. We owe it to our servicemembers to fulfill our constitutional 
obligations and vote to end endless wars.
  Repeal also sends a powerful message to adversaries of the United 
States today. Repeal says: You may be an adversary of the United States 
today--and we know we have challenges around the world today with 
Russia or China or Iran or North Korea. But the repeal of this 
authorization sends the message: You may be our adversary today, just 
as Iraq once was, but the United States specializes, throughout our 
history, in turning adversaries into partners, allies, and friends.
  Look at the U.S.-Germany relationship. We fought two wars against 
Germany in the 20th century. The relationship now is so powerful, and 
that powerful relationship is helping as we try to protect Ukraine from 
an illegal invasion by Russia.
  Look at Japan. We fought a war against Japan, a devastating war. We 
were attacked by Japan in 1941. Yet, now, Japan is one of our closest 
allies in the world.
  Look at Vietnam. When Vietnam invites the USS John McCain to make a 
port call in Vietnam to celebrate the relationship that has been built 
between our two nations--a relationship that still has some challenges 
but a relationship that few could have predicted during the Vietnam 
war--we send a message to the entire world that the United States will 
turn a sword into a plowshare, will beat a spear into a pruning hook; 
that we will embrace diplomacy. And that is a message that the U.S. 
adversaries of today should draw from an action to repeal this war.
  The Biden administration has reissued a statement of administration 
policy on this particular bill, stating that they fully support it. Let 
me just read briefly from it:

       The Administration notes that the United States conducts no 
     ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 
     AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 
     1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis. Repeal of these 
     authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military 
     operations and would support this Administration's commitment 
     to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi 
     partners. That partnership, which includes cooperation with 
     the Iraqi Security Forces, continues at the invitation of the 
     Government of Iraq [to] . . . advise, assist, and enable 
     [them].

  The Great Seal of the United States, which you can see here on the 
wallpaper around this Chamber, was created early in our Nation's 
history, and it shows an eagle holding 13 arrows in one talon--those 13 
to represent the first 13 American States--and an olive branch in the 
other talon. The design was chosen very intentionally. The arrows 
signify the U.S. military capacity, might, and will. The olive branch 
signifies the American desire to be a peacemaking, diplomatic nation.
  On the Seal of the United States, the eagle is facing toward the 
olive

[[Page S814]]

branch--facing toward the olive branch--because we want everyone to 
know how we define ourselves as a nation--that, yes, we will have the 
military capacity to defeat enemies if we must, but, as a nation, our 
preference, permanently and always, is to seek peace and diplomatic 
solutions with all the nations of the world.
  After 20 years, it is time to repeal the Iraq war authorizations. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on this procedural vote today. It will 
begin a robust and fulsome debate that will go into next week. Senator 
Young and I and our colleagues are committed that that debate shall 
include opportunities for Members to offer amendments. That is being 
worked on by Democratic and Republican leadership.
  We haven't had a discussion of this kind for nearly six decades. It 
is good that we are going to give it the time and attention it 
deserves, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the cloture motion 
later this morning.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as Senators, our gravest responsibility 
is deciding when to authorize the use of military force because that is 
a decision about life and death. It is a decision about sending our 
sons and daughters into harm's way.
  More than 20 years ago, we voted on whether to authorize the use of 
military force against Iraq. Decades later, we have a chance to 
formally end that war and claw back an outdated authority.
  When authorizations for military force have outlived the purpose that 
Congress intended, we should repeal them. We should repeal them to 
ensure that Congress determines when to send Americans into harm's way, 
so that our laws reflect current threats and protect U.S. interests, 
and to guard against future executive abuse.
  Now, it has taken a long time to get here. I want to commend Senators 
Kaine and Young, two esteemed members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee who have been pursuing repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs 
against Iraq for years, and I applaud their relentless focus on this 
issue.
  As we mark the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, we cannot 
ignore its heavy toll. It destabilized the Middle East. It empowered 
Iran. It turned al-Qaida into a regional franchise. By some estimates, 
it killed more than a half million Iraqis. It was a war our partners in 
the region did not support, and it damaged American leadership on the 
global stage. But, most gravely, it cost our Nation nearly 5,000 
lives--Americans who fought bravely and served their Nation and didn't 
ask the question whether it is right or wrong but just answered the 
call.
  Now, I am proud to have voted against going to war with Iraq in 2002 
when I served in the House. I believe history has proven that that was 
the right call. But that is not the question before us today. The Iraq 
of 2023 is far different than the Iraq of 2003. Today, Iraq is a 
critical strategic partner. We fight ISIS together. We protect American 
personnel and American assets together. This relationship also goes far 
beyond security. We are partnering on health, education, on climate 
change. We are working to stabilize global energy markets together.
  Repealing these outdated authorizations would cement this important 
relationship with serious bilateral diplomacy. It would help Iraq chart 
a course for the future that is independent and more closely integrated 
with its Arab neighbors. It also removes a major Iranian talking point, 
however false, that the United States is a colonial power in Iraq.
  Now, there are real threats in this part of the world. We must be 
clear-eyed about those, but the answer to those threats is not the 1991 
or 2002 AUMF.
  Now, I know, when we get to amendments, my colleagues will offer 
amendments to this bill. They will try to delay repeal. They will argue 
that we need these authorizations to respond to Iranian-led and 
Iranian-backed attacks. They may even offer amendments to expand these 
authorizations and give the President even broader authority. But I 
urge my colleagues to remember this: The President is clear in his view 
that he has the authority, under the 2001 AUMF and the Constitution, 
for defensive military operations against ISIS or Iranian threats 
against U.S. personnel and interests. In fact, the President has 
responded to Iranian-led and Iranian-backed attacks repeatedly and has 
done so without--without--relying on the 2002 AUMF.
  Now, take it from me, as someone who has worked for decades to 
confront the challenge of Iran, I know well the threat that Iran poses 
to us and to our allies in the region. We cannot be naive about their 
intentions, and we need to have the political will to respond how and 
when we deem necessary. But repeal will have no impact on our ability 
to defend U.S. interests against Iran--none whatsoever.
  After 20 years, this is a defining moment. Congress needs to repeal 
these authorizations for the use of military force to reassert our 
constitutional role on war powers.
  We should not just declare war; we need to be able to end them as 
well. And let's be clear: This is not some theoretical debate. This is 
about the lives of our servicemen and -women who may be called upon to 
fight and make the ultimate sacrifice.
  In our democracy, those decisions must be made by Congress. So I am 
proud that we are stepping up to have the difficult debates that we 
should have. And I look forward to passing this bill with a strong 
bipartisan vote, as it passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over the authorizations for use of 
military force. That bipartisan vote there, I think, will be reflected 
in a bipartisan vote in the House.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to repeal these authorizations, and, in 
the first instance, to start by doing so by voting to have cloture.
  I yield the floor.