[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1007-S1016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ--
Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 316, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 316) to repeal the authorizations for use of
military force against Iraq.
Pending:
Schumer amendment No. 15, to add an effective date.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
S. 316
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 4,487--4,487. That is the number of
American servicemembers who perished in Iraq by the time the last
combat troops departed in 2011, over a decade ago. Joining them are
over 32,000 American servicemembers and civilians wounded in action and
tens of thousands more who struggled--many to this very day--with
everything from toxic burn pit exposure to PTSD.
It is with these brave servicemembers and civilians in mind and their
families and all who have been impacted by the war in Iraq that the
Senate, today, votes to repeal the Iraq authorizations for use of
military force from 2002 and 1991. The United States and Iraq--the
entire world--have changed dramatically since 2002, and it is time the
laws on the books caught up with those changes.
These AUMFs have outlived their use. These repeals will not harm our
servicemembers abroad nor will they hinder our ability to keep
Americans safe. Every year we keep these AUMFs on the books is another
chance for a future administration to abuse them. War powers belong in
the hands of Congress so we have an obligation to prevent future
Presidents from exploiting these AUMFs to bumble us into a new Middle
East conflict.
I am glad that repealing these AUMFs has been a bipartisan effort,
and I hope this process can be--it should be--a blueprint for how the
Senate works over the next few years. We will have amendments without
being dilatory. We will have debate without stall tactics. We will
continue to look assiduously, diligently for other opportunities to
advance bipartisan bills.
There are many Members and staff I wish to thank for making today's
vote possible because this effort has been years--years--in the making.
First, thank you to Chairman Menendez, of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, as well as Senator Kaine. To watch him work on
this bill, not only day in and day out, not only month in and month
out, but year in and year out because he had a such firm belief that it
was the right thing to do, was a joy. Thank you also to Senator Young,
who worked very hard to make this happen and who brought so many of his
colleagues along.
[[Page S1008]]
I want to thank staff who did the great work here too: Megan Bartley,
Andrew Keller, Elisa Catalano Ewers, JC Jain, Nick Barbash, Lauren
O'Brien, Brandt Anderson. And, of course, there is my staff. I have
been blessed with the greatest staff in the world as you will hear
about soon enough, about one of them: Lane Bodian, Meghan Taira, and
Mike Kuiken.
The American people are tired of endless wars in the Middle East. We
owe it to our servicemembers and our veterans, as well as to their
families and all communities impacted by the war, to repeal these AUMFs
today. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote later this morning.
Fire Grants and Safety Act
Mr. President, on fire grants, as I said a minute ago, we are trying
to move on bipartisan legislation that really matters to the average
American person. One of these is going to be the Fire Grants and Safety
Act. Later today, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to the Fire Grants and Safety Act.
This bipartisan legislation would make sure that both SAFER and AFG--
two Federal grant programs that are paid and that volunteer
firefighters rely on--remain available. If we don't extend these
grants, they will expire in a few months and leave our firefighters
without access to the resources they need to keep our communities safe.
Our firefighters, paid and volunteer, are brave. They risk their
lives for us. They run to danger, not away from it. We need to ensure
they have the equipment and personnel necessary to do their jobs for
their own safety and the safety of those they protect. We need this
especially in smaller, more rural, more suburban areas where there
often isn't enough revenue to afford more resources.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes so we can move forward quickly on
this legislation.
Debt Ceiling
Now, Mr. President, on the debt ceiling, we are almost a quarter of
the way through 2023, and House Republicans have still failed to answer
the most important question of their majority.
What is your plan?
What is the plan of House Republicans' to raise the debt ceiling? We
hear a new explanation, seemingly every day, from some new corner of
the Republican Conference, but none of it adds up to what Republicans
need most--a clear, detailed, and serious plan.
Even this week, Speaker McCarthy has, in desperation, tried another
new and obviously failing approach. He laid out a new round of vague
conditions, each one more amorphous than the last, and none of them
with any specifics. Then he pulled a huge number out of the sky--$4
trillion--without telling us where, when, or how we would get to it.
That is not a plan. Everyone knows that.
Republicans have been utterly flailing. One day, they say they will
release a budget. Then they say they can't release a budget. One corner
of the party says certain programs are off the table. Then another
group of Republicans suggest the opposite. House Republican leadership
is doing everything except the one thing they must do: Show the
American people your plan, House Republicans. Show us your plan.
So when Speaker McCarthy points fingers at Democrats, all he is
doing--it is so obvious--is trying to deflect from problems he has in
his own conference. That is what is going on every time we hear a new
idea, read a new letter, or hear a new set of talking points from the
Republicans. They are far too divided to unite around a single
proposal. The MAGA wing is pulling in one direction, and those in the
middle are pulling another way. There is no consensus in the Republican
House caucus.
The solution to the debt ceiling, however, is staring the Republicans
in the face. Do what we have done before, Democrats and Republicans,
under President Trump and under President Biden. Stop the
brinksmanship. Stop threatening default. Work with Democrats on a clean
extension of the debt ceiling. No more kicking the can down the road.
Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan?
Democrats and Republicans worked together, as I said, under President
Trump. Even when the Republicans had the majority and the Democrats
could have blocked it, we didn't. We knew our responsibilities to the
people of America, who would be so devastated by a lapse in the debt
ceiling and that their interest rates, their car costs, their home
costs, and so much else would go up.
Well, we did this before by working together in a bipartisan way,
without brinksmanship, without hostage-taking, and we should do it
again this year.
Women's Healthcare
Mr. President, nominations on hold.
For years, for years--decades--both parties have cooperated in the
Senate to confirm military promotions, nonpolitical. It is simply the
military doing its job and promoting people who deserve it. We have
worked and cooperated to confirm those promotions to ensure our
military's work continues unimpeded and our national security remains
strong.
But, today, one Member--only one Member, the Senator from Alabama
Senator Tuberville--is now blocking more than 180 military promotions
because he objects to women in the military accessing reproductive
care. In doing so, the senior Senator from Alabama is putting the
security of America in jeopardy, and he risks permanently politicizing
the confirmations of routine military promotions.
As Secretary Austin warned yesterday--this is our Secretary of
Defense, who is a former four-star general--``not approving the
recommendations for promotions actually creates a ripple effect
throughout the force that makes us far less ready than we need to be.''
`` . . . far less ready than we need to be,'' Senator Tuberville.
This is our national security. That is what Austin said.
Now, the senior Senator from Alabama claims that his hold has nothing
to do with the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs. Of course, it does.
It has everything to do with it. He is telling women in the military
they are not allowed to make their own decisions about their health.
That is wrong. I assure the Senator that our women in the military
are more than capable of making those decisions for themselves, and I
assure the Senator that the vast majority of Americans do not agree
with him that he should make the choices for women in the military, who
risk their lives for us, about their health.
It is disappointing. It is disappointing to see that more of my
colleagues on the other side have yet to call out the Senator from
Alabama's reckless stunt. I thank those who, indeed, have raised their
voices, but we need more. Republicans, who claim to be such great
supporters of our military, must announce the harm the Senator from
Alabama is causing.
All of us on both sides feel deeply passionate about issues from time
to time. I respect that Senator Tuberville, whose views dramatically
differ from mine, has deep feelings about this.
Well, Senator Tuberville, I have deep feelings on certain issues--so
do the other 99 Senators--but we don't hold up military promotions and
risk our national security because of those deep feelings.
If every one of us did what the Senator from Alabama is doing, the
military would collapse. So we ought to move forward. I implore my
Republican colleagues to speak out and prevail on the Senator from
Alabama so we can get these promotions confirmed, get our military
operating to its full capacity, and continue working to protect the
Nation.
Tribute to Gerry Petrella
Mr. President, in tribute to one of the greatest staffers, certainly,
whom I have ever had and I think that the Hill has had in a very long
time, I would quote Tina Turner: ``Simply the best.''
I will spare him and his parents, who are in the Gallery, my singing
it, although we did talk about doing karaoke together at some point.
Well, that is what they will say--what they already say about the
person whom I wish to honor here today at the end of my remarks.
It is never, never easy to say goodbye to a member of your team. We
in ``Schumer Land,'' as we call our group, have such a close-knit
staff. We are friends. We are pals. We have each other's backs. We
protect each other. It is a beautiful thing. Even when people leave,
they are still part of our family,
[[Page S1009]]
and we see them all the time. We saw many of them last night as we said
goodbye to Gerry at a local pub--an appropriate place, I might say, to
do that.
So it is never easy to say goodbye to a member of your team, but it
is even harder when that person has worked with you--or put up with you
depending on whom you ask--for 15 years. It is still harder when that
person happens to be Gerry Petrella. His real name is Gerard Anthony
Petrella, reflecting his Irish and Italian roots. I have nicknames for
some of my staffers. They just pop up. He has always been Gerald even
though his name is Gerard. I think it is 15 years he has been Gerald.
It hasn't stuck with anyone but me, but it is there.
Well, it is with immense gratitude--sorrow as well--that I close
today by saying thank you, thank you, and bidding farewell to one of
the very best to ever do it here in the Senate--our policy director,
Gerry.
I met Gerry when he was a staffer for a local town official.
I said: Boy, this guy is good.
And we are always on the lookout, myself and my two great chiefs,
whom I am so grateful for, Mike Lynch and Martin Brennan--two tough
Irish guys who have kept this Jewish kid going forward for a long time.
Anyway, we always are looking out for good staff, and when we saw this
guy, we said: We have got to get him.
Brennan sat down with him and said: Oh, he is good.
I sat down with him. He reminded me, last night, that I had him drive
to come talk to me before the Super Bowl of the Giants and Patriots--
the first one. They won two, I remind my friends from Massachusetts and
New England. I met him, and I said oh boy. So Gerry began running our
Long Island office.
He did an amazing job, an amazing job. So good, that after he had
done 4 years there--whatever Gerry does, he works his heart out. He
never burns himself out because he has got incredible energy. But he
works his heart out. It was time for a change. So we asked him to come
be our director--a new position--of economic development here in
Washington. The number of jobs, the number of projects, the number of
things he created was just amazing.
Then, of course, he became our policy director. When I became the
leader, he became the policy director of the whole Senate. He did
amazing things there, as I have said before.
Rarely, rarely can you say when someone leaves, no matter what else
they do in their lives, they have so benefited millions of Americans,
many of whom have seen the benefits already--$35 insulin for Medicare--
and many more who will see those benefits for years to come. They may
not know it was Gerry Petrella who did it, but we do. We do. He changed
the world.
His work was so important. We had the greatest 2 years that this
Senate has seen. We led the country, we led the party, we led everybody
in doing this with the BIF, and the IRA, and the CHIPS and Science
bill, and the PACT Act, and the gun bill, and so much else--marriage
equality. They wouldn't have happened without Gerry Petrella. That is
about the greatest compliment you can pay to someone.
So, Gerry, thank you. Thank you for never giving up on me after all
these years. Thank you for coming to the office every single day and
pushing, pushing, pushing.
He is not only brilliant, he not only comes with good ideas, but he
is a jackhammer--rat-a-tat-tat. He keeps pushing and pushing and
pushing until he gets it done.
So thank you for doing that, for setting the tone of our team, for
defining our vision, for laying out a strategy and executing in good
times and bad. Thank you for working to the bone to find a path forward
to pass our agendas, especially when it seemed out of reach. Thank you.
And I don't want to neglect the fact that he has deep feelings on so
many different issues, and he had the luxury and the ability to get
those done. So I also thank Gerry for staying true to himself and his
values as he worked in the maelstrom that is Senate legislating on such
important bills.
Gerry is a man on fire with love for his country, love for the
issues, love for the work.
Thank you, Gerry.
Thank you to Gerry's parents, who, as I mentioned, are here in the
Gallery.
Thank you to George, who had both of his parents often in the office
for many long hours--cute little George--and our great legislative
director, Meghan Taira.
Gerry, thank you for all these great years. You will always be in our
family. You will always have a place here in the Senate. My very best
on the next wonderful chapter in your life. God bless you.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Covenant School Shooting
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the events this week in Nashville, TN, are
still fresh in our minds. The thought that a shooter went on the campus
of a Christian school, a school for children--little children--this
person who went on that campus blasted her way into the building and
then took the lives of three 9-year-old children and three adults, who
were the principal and staff at the school.
It is heartbreaking to think that we are reliving the scene over and
over again, where our children who are sent by their loving parents off
to school, lunches in hand, never came home--never came home.
We don't know all the details yet of the shooter or the weaponry
which she owned at the time or used in the event, but we do know that
there were weapons that we are very familiar with. One, of course, is
the AR-15, the military-style assault weapon that has, sadly, become so
popular in America.
This morning's Washington Post had an editorial which touched me
personally and I wanted to share this morning on the floor. I will
quote from it. The editorial board wrote:
These attacks are always heart-wrenching. But they're not
surprising anymore--neither the massacres themselves nor the
weapons used to carry them out. Ten of the 17 deadliest mass
killings in the United States since 2012 involved AR-15s. The
names of the towns and cities where these tragedies took
place have become familiar: Newtown, San Bernardino, Las
Vegas, Parkland, Uvalde and beyond.
The Washington Post spells out the specific cities each year where
these mass shootings took place with AR-15s and the number of people
who were killed. I am going to read the names of these communities into
the Record, as they should be:
Las Vegas, NV, 2017. An AR-15 weapon was used. Sixty people were
killed.
Orlando--Pulse--FL, 2016. An MCX rifle. Forty-nine people killed.
Newtown, CT, Sandy Hook Elementary School, 2012. The shooter had an
AR-15. The shooter killed 27 people, including those beautiful little
children.
Sutherland Springs, TX, 2017. Another AR-15. Twenty-five people
killed, including a pregnant woman.
Uvalde, TX, 2022. Another AR-15 military assault rifle. Twenty-one
people killed.
Parkland, FL, 2018. Another AR-15, killing 17 people.
San Bernardino, CA, 2015. An AR-15 there killed 14 people.
Aurora, CO, 2012. Another AR-15 killed 12.
Pittsburgh, 2018. An AR-15 killed 11.
Boulder, CO, 2021. An AR-15 killed 10.
Buffalo, NY, 2022. An AR-15 killed 10.
They cut the list off at 10 deaths in a mass shooting involving these
military-style assault weapons, so they didn't include Highland Park,
IL, but I want to make a record of that.
Fourth of July 2022. An AR-15-style weapon. Seven killed and dozens
wounded, including an 8-year-old boy who will be paralyzed for life.
These are the realities of the AR-15 as it is being used. It was
designed to do just this: kill massive numbers of people, of human
beings.
One in twenty U.S. adults owns at least one AR-15. Think of that. One
out of every twenty Americans owns at least one AR-15. That is roughly
16 million people storing roughly 20 million guns designed to mow down
enemies on the battlefield with brutal efficiency. That is the reality
the Washington Post reports.
The rise in production of the AR-15 is stunning. AR-15s accounted for
1.2 percent of all manufactured guns in 1990--1.2 percent--and 23.4
percent of the guns produced in America in 2020. Thirty years later,
almost one out of every four guns produced in the United States is an
AR-15 military-style assault rifle.
[[Page S1010]]
The AR-15 is materially different than traditional handguns. The
rifle fires very small bullets at very fast speeds. The projectiles
don't move straight and smooth through human targets like those of a
traditional handgun--our image of a bullet hole in a movie. Their
velocity turns them unstable upon penetration so that they tumble
through flesh and vital organs.
Mr. President, I thought long and hard about reading the next two or
three sentences of the Washington Post editorial on the floor of the
Senate. I am not going to read them because they spell out in a few
words but in graphic detail what happens to the body of a child when it
is struck by one of these military-style assault weapons. I can't bring
myself to think that one of those parents might be listening to this
Senate proceeding and have to relive the horror of the moment. But
suffice it to say, what happens is devastating and horrible to any
human body but certainly to the body of a small child.
Mr. President, think of Sutherland Springs, where the shooter, armed
with the AR-556 Ruger, fired off 450 military-grade bullets within
minutes, killing 25 people, including a pregnant woman.
Think of Dayton, where the gunman needed only 32 seconds to hit more
than two dozen people with 41 bullets. That is because he was equipped
with a 100-round drum magazine. Even a 30-round magazine, which is now
the industry standard today, would have forced him to reload at least
once. A 15-round magazine would have forced him to reload twice. The
Washington Post's analysis of the time that would have taken reveals
that lives could have been saved, potentially six of the nine who were
killed, because of the high-capacity magazine that was attached to the
gun.
There should be a ban on these high-capacity magazines. It is hard to
imagine that you can listen to these numbers and the devastation of
these weapons and imagine someone rationalizing that when our Founding
Fathers sat down so long ago to write the Second Amendment, they
envisioned what we are facing today in Nashville, TN, and in Highland
Park, IL, and in 131 different instances of mass shootings so far this
year. And less than 90 days have passed in this calendar year--over 131
mass shootings. And as I go through the list here of those involving
AR-15s, the numbers of casualties and deaths are astounding.
This should be shameful to this great Nation, to think that the
United States of America accepts this as part of our constitutional
right, our constitutional responsibility, to own a mass killing weapon
like the AR-15; that virtually one out of four of all guns manufactured
in this country today are AR-15 weapons. Are we out of our minds to let
this happen, to let children in Nashville, children in Connecticut,
children be victimized or anyone be victimized by these at a Fourth of
July parade or wherever it happens to be?
I listened to my colleagues yesterday. One of them brought this up in
the Senate Judiciary Committee, challenging Secretary Mayorkas of the
Department of Homeland Security as to whether he supported an assault
weapon ban. He said he did. I do too.
The Senator then said to him: Well, define an assault weapon for me.
Well, it is an interesting challenge. We did define it when we banned
assault weapons for a period of time and saw the number of mass
shootings decline dramatically in our country. But, of course, the
producers of these weapons changed them just enough to be outside the
definition. So there is no question that we are dealing with a moving
definition, and we have to be open to the reality of it. But is this
beyond us as a nation, to define a weapon in a way that we can
legitimately regulate it?
Who should own an AR-15? I obviously would say the military. That is
what they were designed for. Police, in extraordinary situations, might
need them--I can see that--some specialized law enforcement agencies.
But why in the world does an individual American need an AR-15,
particularly with a high-capacity magazine? It isn't for hunting; that
is for certain. It is hardly for self-defense. It can't be much for
sport. What is the rationale behind this?
Then you look at the Supreme Court and the recent Bruen decision. You
wonder, What are they thinking? What is going through the mind of
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as he is arguing that somehow the
AR-15 military assault weapon that is killing so many Americans and
groups was envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the
Second Amendment? They were dealing with powdered wigs and flintlock
rifles. They certainly had no idea what a high-capacity magazine can do
to a large group of people, as we have seen so many times over and
over.
Well, what are we going to do about it? is the obvious question.
Senator, nice speech. What is next? Well, I will tell you what is next.
The American people are next. If they are fed up with the situation, as
I am--and I know many are--they have to make it a condition when they
come to vote for Members of Congress.
Currently, the House of Representatives is under the control of the
Republican Party. The likelihood that they will consider any gun safety
legislation is minimal. We now have a scant majority in the Senate but
not enough to break a filibuster over an issue. So we have limited
opportunities.
What it takes is a decision by the American people to put an end to
this madness. The people they elect to the House and Senate--there have
to be simple questions asked for people to understand where they are
going to stand when issues of gun safety come before them.
I will just tell you, Mr. President, that as chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I am sorry we don't have the votes now to act. We
need to do it--not just for the great people of this Nation but also
for their children and grandchildren.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have come to speak on a different topic,
but I want to commend my friend the Senator from Illinois for his
comments. I agree with him.
Just yesterday, my colleague and dear friend Senator Kaine and I met
with four of the families who were part of one of that litany of
shootings, in Virginia Beach, where a mentally deranged individual came
in and brutally murdered 12--mostly city employees and a few folks who
were there to try to get city services. The anguish, pain, and hurt of
these four families 4 years after the fact reflect the kind of anguish
and hurt that the families in Nashville are feeling and so many
countless others.
I commend the Senator again and agree that it is incumbent upon us to
do our job. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
I thank him for his comments.
S. 316
Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning where, after 2 weeks
of consideration and debate--and I have not been part of all that
debate. I would like to say I had been because then I could use an
excuse of why my voice sounds so crummy this morning. But after 2 weeks
of debate and literally the way the Senate used to function, with votes
on a whole host of amendments, the Senate shortly is poised to take a
truly notable action: voting to repeal not one but two authorizations
for use of military force, finally taking these outdated
authorizations--dating all the way back to 2002 and the previous one,
back to 1991--off the books.
This is an important step for Congress in reclaiming its
constitutional duties with regard to authorizing the use of U.S. forces
in combat. I want to give credit to the Biden administration for
supporting this repeal and to the bipartisan majority in Congress who
have brought this measure to the brink of passage here in the Senate.
As we come to the floor, getting ready to take this vote, we would
not have gotten here, I can assure you, without the steadfast
leadership of Senator Kaine and Senator Young. These two have been
partners on this effort since 2019.
For Senator Young, given his service as a marine in the decade right
in the middle of these two authorizations, I know that this fight is
personal for him, and I appreciate his tireless work on this. And
starting off on that fight, it was a little more challenging, perhaps,
on his side of the aisle, but he has been relentless. He has, through
the
[[Page S1011]]
power of his passion and conviction, convinced a number of his
colleagues to join this event.
This will go down, I believe, as one of Senator Young's most
significant accomplishments, accomplishments that I have worked with
him on as well--for example, the CHIPS bill last year, the science
bill--where he also provided enormous leadership, and I thank him for
that.
But I would be remiss here today if I didn't spend the balance of my
2 or 3 minutes on the efforts of my great, great friend of 43-plus
years Tim Kaine, who I think we would all agree that without his
efforts, we wouldn't be here today.
For the decade--or a little more than a decade that Senator Kaine has
served in this Chamber, he has been the leading voice--and a lot of
times the only voice, much to the chagrin sometimes of folks in my
party, much to the chagrin sometimes of the Obama administration--in
working to push this Senate to live up to its constitutional duty--that
duty, which is one of the most solemn ones we have, which is the
exercise, the power to declare war and, ultimately, to commit our young
men and women--fellow Americans--into combat.
Now, this is also very personal to Tim. We both have the honor of
representing the State that has probably the highest concentration of
military and veterans of any State in the country. Tim also brings the
experience of being a father of a marine. I remember watching Matt grow
up--our families have been friends--and when he chose to go into the
marines, I don't think we were surprised, but the way he distinguished
himself in that duty, serving abroad in deployments to Africa and
elsewhere and then serving back here in this country, you could always
tell how proud Tim and Anne felt about Matt's service. But you could
also feel the extra burden of responsibility he felt to make sure what
he owed not only to Matt but what he owed to, literally, every young
American who served in our military.
So this has been something that--this push has really been one of the
guiding principles that has directed Tim throughout his whole career in
the Senate. I think back to initially him raising these issues in the
Foreign Relations Committee back in 2013, saying it was time for
Congress not to simply take a passive role or be a Monday morning
quarterback--or, more likely, a Sunday morning quarterback--on the news
shows about our constitutional responsibility in weighing in on
conflicts that were taking place around the world that went well beyond
the original authorizations of these AUMFs. He constantly would try to
bring up this issue--again, many times being the only voice--and I know
how much he respected President Obama--many times going against the
position of the Obama administration. Now, other folks might have, at
some point, whether it was Democratic leadership at the White House or
his fellow Members, said, you know: Can't you get off this? This makes
us all feel a little uncomfortable.
And my friend Tim Kaine, it is hard to work with him. We are a great
partner. I am the glass ``three-quarters empty guy''; he is the glass
``overfilling with confidence and hope guy.'' But even that constant
hope and belief, there had to be times during this decade of fighting
on this when he had to have lost a little bit of faith--could this
actually get done?
But that relentless optimism, that belief based in his faith, that if
you keep on something, that people will ultimately do the right thing.
And at the end of the day, that dogged determination, all that has come
about in these last 2 weeks, is a testament to that kind of hard work.
I have watched it at times when he kept, year after year, kind of
banging his head against the wall--and, again, there are a lot of us,
sometimes even I felt this way--well, you know, maybe we should do it
next year; maybe this is not the right time; maybe there is some other
reason where, you know, this can wait a little while; it is not on the
front of mind. But, for Tim Kaine, it was always front of mind. Working
now with our friend Todd Young--but his prior partners, great Senators
who I had the opportunity to work with, Bob Corker and Jeff Flake--he
has been just relentless.
And this profile and courage--profile in doing the right thing--is a
great testament to the people of Virginia and, frankly, to the people
in our Nation that this Senator keeps his eye on the ball.
Now, when I told Senator Kaine I might want to make these comments,
he said: But, Mark, we are not at the finish line; we still have to get
it through the House.
Well, I think you are going to have a remarkable vote in a few
minutes due to the work of Senator Young and Senator Kaine. And that
overwhelming majority that is going to be posted here today, I think,
will propel this action in the House. And I am very glad to see that
the Speaker of the House has indicated that he will bring this
legislation up.
There are more debates to be had and more votes to wrestle down and
more amendments when it gets to the House; but, at the end of the day,
this bill is going to become the law of the land. Congress is going to
take back its Constitutional responsibility over the power to declare
war and to put our troops in harm's way.
It wouldn't have happened without the great work of Senator Todd
Young. This debate wouldn't even have still been alive, still vibrant,
still forcing us to do our job without the relentless, tireless work of
a great public servant, a great Virginian, a great American--my friend
Tim Kaine.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Republican whip.
Personal Health Investment Today Act
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the winter season drew to a close, South
Dakota's high school and college athletes were busy. And from
basketball and wrestling to track and field, they have a lot to be
proud of. The University of South Dakota Coyotes swept the men's and
women's Summit League titles for indoor track and field for the first
time in program history. Black Hills State made a Final Four run in the
Division II men's basketball tournament. And South Dakota State
wrestler Tanner Sloan came in second at the NCAA tournament as the
Jackrabbits wrestling team notched its second highest finish as the
Division I program.
As I traveled around South Dakota this month, I was able to see many
of our student athletes compete. I saw Lower Brule take on White River
in the high school boys' basketball semifinals in Aberdeen. I caught
the girls' Class B, State B basketball tournament in Huron, where I got
to see my hometown Jones County Coyotes cap off their historic season.
And I was at the Summit League tournament in Sioux Falls as the South
Dakota State women began their run for the tournament title.
Being back in a high school gym--seeing student athletes playing hard
and working together for the good of their team--always brings back
good memories. And it makes me reflect on how sports have shaped my
life. In addition to instilling important values like teamwork,
humility, and service, playing sports taught me the importance of
staying active and made me a lifelong fitness enthusiast.
The benefits of living an active life are well-documented. Regular
physical activity is associated with greater physical well-being,
longer lifespans, and improved mental health. Staying active can help
prevent a host of chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes,
various types of cancer, heart disease, and depression. And for those
who do develop chronic conditions, exercise can help to manage them.
For example, according to Mayo Clinic, physical activity can help
prevent heart disease from getting worse and lower your risk of dying
from the disease--or, to name another example, exercise's benefits for
managing anxiety and depression are well-known.
In fact, one study found that exercise may be more effective than
medication when it comes to managing anxiety and depression. And the
health benefits of exercise can also help individuals save money on
healthcare as they age.
One study found--and here I quote a New York Times article:
People who start to exercise before or during middle age
typically save anywhere between $824 to $1,874 annually on
healthcare costs after retirement, and the earlier they start
their workouts, the greater those savings can be.
[[Page S1012]]
That is from a study conducted by the New York Times.
Unfortunately, despite exercise's significant health and even
financial benefits, a lot of American adults and children either don't
exercise at all or don't get enough exercise. There are a number of
reasons for that, of course, but one disincentive to exercising can be
the cost of some exercise equipment and programs.
Some of the tools that can help people be more active--like a gym
membership or fitness equipment--can be too costly for some Americans.
Even registration for youth sports leagues can be expensive, making it
harder for some families to take advantage of these activities' health
benefits. That is why I recently introduced the Personal Health
Investment Today Act--it will be called the PHIT Act--with Senator
Murphy.
The PHIT Act would allow Americans to use a portion of the money in
their pretax health savings account or flexible spending account for
fitness-related expenses. It wouldn't cover things like an expensive
new putter or fees at a country club. But it would allow individuals to
use up to $1,000--or $2,000 for married couples--from their HSA or FSA
to invest in preventive health tools like exercise equipment or a gym
membership--investments that can result in meaningful long-term health
benefits as well as healthcare savings.
The PHIT Act would also allow families to use these pretax dollars
for youth sports registration fees and some of the gear that kids need
to participate in sports. The typical family pays hundreds of dollars a
year for registration and equipment for youth sports.
Many families say sports can be a strain on their budgets, something
that has only become more pronounced as inflation has gone up. And,
unsurprisingly, some families have had to reduce their kids' level of
participation in sports because of the cost.
As I said earlier, I learned a lot by playing sports while I was
growing up, and I am sure I am not alone. Youth sports are one of the
best ways to build lifelong healthy habits. They help kids build strong
friendships and learn important skills and values that they carry
throughout their lives. And the PHIT Act would help reduce some of the
cost barriers that many families face when it comes to getting their
kids involved in sports.
With more and more of our life spent with technology, we can't
overestimate the value of spending time disconnected from screens and
being active. Fortunately, no matter how well my bracket is doing,
watching March Madness always makes me eager to ``lace `em up,'' as
they say, and get on the court myself. Although, I will be honest, I
spend, these days, more time trying to keep up with my grandkids than I
do working on my jump shot.
But whether you are playing in a rec league or with your kids, going
to a gym or making a walk or a run as part of your routine, staying
active throughout your life is an important part of staying healthy.
And with the warmer weather inching closer every day, it is a great
time to get active.
The PHIT Act is a commonsense way to help encourage more Americans to
invest in tools that make fitness goals easier to attain. And I will
continue to work to pass the PHIT Act and promote healthy living for
more Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled votes: Myself,
for up to 10 minutes; Senator Kaine, for up to 10 minutes; Senator
Risch, for up to 5 minutes; Senator Menendez, for up to 5 minutes; and
Senator Schumer, for up to 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 316
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the great
Senator from Virginia, Senator Tim Kaine, on the floor of the Senate
today. And as we await this final vote--final passage of the repeal of
the Authorizations for Use of Military Force in 1991, the Gulf war,
and, in 2002, the Iraq war--I reflect on just how much work it took to
get here, how much persistence. And I thank Senator Kaine for sticking
it out.
A lot has happened over the last couple of decades.
A lot has happened over the last couple of decades. Twenty years ago,
American soldiers were fighting that war in Iraq. Today, they are still
there. They are advising Iraq's army at the invitation of the current
government. Twenty years ago, Iraq was our enemy. Today Iraq is a
strategic partner, an ally in advancing stability across the Middle
East. A lot has changed in the last 20 years; and, yet, according to
our laws, today we are still at war with Iraq.
This isn't just the result of an oversight. It is an intentional
abdication of this body, of its constitutional role in America's
national security. Allowing it to continue is a strategic mistake. It
is a mistake that disrespects the sacrifices of our soldiers and their
Iraqi partners as well. It is one that could endanger their work across
the Middle East, and it is central to our national security that we set
this right.
Here is why.
Iran has designs on a path to the Mediterranean Sea. The world's
leading exporter of terror wants to build a route to move manpower and
materiel to its proxies all across the region. Once it reaches the sea,
it will establish a foothold to threaten Europe. This terrorism
thoroughfare would run through Syria, through Lebanon, and, of course,
through Iraq. Iran has sent many thousands of soldiers into Syria to
prop up Dictator Bashar Al Assad and co-opted regions of that war-torn
nation. Lebanon's institutions are weak. Hezbollah, with Iran's
backing, dominates many sectors of the governments and the country.
Iraq cannot follow this path. It cannot become a satellite of Iran,
and Iran cannot be permitted unrestricted access across the region.
Our advisers are fortifying and working with the Iraqi Army to
prevent this dangerous future.
But we are undertaking this vital mission with a nation we are still
technically at war with. The authorizations for both the 1991 Gulf war
and 2002 Operation Iraqi Freedom are both still on the books. These
authorizations for long-ended wars passed almost entirely by Members of
Congress long-retired. These authorizations are outdated. They are a
detriment to our national security strategy, and they are an abdication
of Congress's constitutional role in declaring and, yes, ending wars.
In the centuries before our revolution, Kings waged wars--wars that
their subjects fought. Reflecting on this history, our Founding Fathers
placed the power to make war not with the executive, but with this
branch, the legislative branch. And it is here in our Congress, in the
people's Congress, they determine that debate and deliberation and
consensus should precede a decision to go to war or to avert it.
You see, the Framers placed this great responsibility in our hands--
our hands. And we let it slip right through them. By allowing these
authorizations to live on long past their purpose, we have forfeited
the power to make and to oversee wars to the White House. Presidents of
both parties--of both parties--have employed specious legal reasoning
and used them as a justification for military interventions wholly
unrelated to their original missions.
So here is the choice before us: We repeal these authorizations; we
restore a part of our system of checks and balances; or we let them
live on, extending a permanent blank check for Presidents to bypass
Congress in authorizing military action. That is the choice.
By doing the former, we not only take a step towards realigning the
function of our government with its Constitution, we also send an
important message to Prime Minister Sudani that our interests are
shared; our nations are allies; that we will continue to partner with
Iraq to train and equip its Army in their fight against ISIS; and that
we oppose Iran's violation of Iraq's sovereignty and its ambitions of
regional dominance--ambitions that endanger the world far beyond the
Middle East.
And let us not forget that in case of urgent national security
emergencies, even after repealing these authorizations, Presidents can
still, as they can now, invoke their article II war powers.
In closing, I just want to underscore the heroic legislative
efforts--the heroic leadership--that my colleague Tim
[[Page S1013]]
Kaine has shown throughout this long effort to get this legislation on
the floor to persuade those around the country that this should remain
a first-order priority; to persuade people in both parties that this
merits our time and our attention; that these repeal efforts are
important not just to this generation, but to future generations.
Thank you to Senator Kaine and his team.
I want to thank my team--my amazing national security team and
legislative team--for their hard work on this effort, as well.
I want to reiterate something I know that Senator Kaine agrees with:
that repealing these war authorizations will give a greater voice to
those whom we represent. We live with the possibility every day that
our men and women in uniform could be called away to fight, to
sacrifice their very lives for our freedom. We dread for that moment to
come. But if it does, we must be certain that the American people are
united behind the decisions we make here and that our intentions are
clear to our military commanders.
By reclaiming our war powers, by restoring the open, civil, but
passionate debates about matters of war and peace, we will do exactly
that. And our Nation and its allies will be stronger and safer because
of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the United States invaded Iraq following
congressional authorization exactly 20 years ago, March 19 and 20,
2003.
In that war, nearly 4,500 Americans lost their lives and more than
31,000 American troops were wounded--some grievously--who will carry
that wound for the rest of their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
civilians were killed.
I rise thinking about all of them as we come close to a vote to
declare these wars are over.
It wasn't too long into the war when criticism of the decision to go
to war began. There is no criticism of the heroism of the American
troops who served ably, who did so well, who protected their
colleagues, who protected civilian life the best they could. But there
began to be criticism of the rationale for the war.
Two of the rationales for this war were that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. That was very convincing to many colleagues here. It
turned out not to be true. And another of the rationales that was
occasionally advanced was that Iraq had participated in the 9/11
attack. That proved not to be true.
So much of the analysis of the Iraq war, looking backward over 20
years and lessons learned, has focused upon the rationales advanced
that turned out not to be true.
But there was another challenge; and today is an effort, in many
ways, to try to fix that challenge. And the challenge was this: We
rushed into it. There were 4,500 who died; 31,000 who were wounded, the
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
What we have to contemplate is the reality that we rushed into a
war--this body rushed into a war. The Iraq war resolution was filed in
the House in early October 2002, assigned to a committee, and came out
of the House in a week. The resolution was pending in the Senate--no
committee action, no committee opportunity for inquiry, amendment,
debate. It was pending in the Senate for 3 days--3 days.
The Senate voted to go to war--a war that has had massive
consequences--with a total of 3 days of analysis. Taking the time to be
the greatest deliberative body in the world does not guarantee that we
will get everything right. But short-circuiting a decision, especially
a decision of such magnitude as to whether the United States should go
to war, maximizes the chance that we, as fallible humans, will get it
wrong.
I believe many of the challenges that we faced in the Iraq war began
with that rush. I am very dedicated to the proposition--and I have been
since I came here--that the United States and the article I branch of
Congress, we should never be pushed into a war and we should never be
rushed into a war.
The repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF has been on the floor of the
Senate for 2 weeks, not 3 days. The repeal has been pending before the
body since 2019. It has had two different markups in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee where members got chances to offer amendment and
debate and vote twice. The effort over the last 13 days has involved 11
votes on amendments in this body. In the declaration of war, there were
only five amendment votes.
We have given dramatically more time in this body to the question of
whether we end two wars--one declared in 1991 and one declared in
2002--than was given to the momentous question of whether we should
start a war.
I think that is a lesson that we should all absorb and learn from. I
want to thank my colleagues who have been so helpful in this regard.
Senator Young has been such an able colleague in this path from the
very day he came into this body and was assigned to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee; his bona fides, having worked with a great Member
of the Senate, Senator Lugar; and his marine service made him somebody
who grabbed this issue immediately.
I want to thank the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's leadership,
Senators Menendez and Risch, both of whom have cooperated to try to
give this the attention and deliberation it deserves. I will say this
about Senator Risch: We have had disagreements along the way, but here
is a man who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable--
curmudgeonly, yes, but not disagreeable.
I also want to thank Senator Schumer for being committed to make this
happen.
Also to Senator Warner for his pep talks when I would get down about
how come I am not able to convince anybody. He would give me pep talks,
and I appreciated his comments.
I appreciate the outside groups that weighed in in significant ways--
American Legion, Concerned Veterans for America, Friends Committee on
National Legislation, and so many others.
I very much want to thank my staff, many of whom are here, who have
worked with me on this and, probably like Senator Warner at some
points, wondered why I was so obsessed about it. Can't we move on and
do something else? I learned early, I am not going to get my way by
looks, so I better get it by persistence. And this has been one of
those efforts where persistence has helped.
And the passage of 20 years, and even the anniversary--the 20th
anniversary, has kind of opened a reflective moment where I think we
are moving in the right direction.
Last thing I want to say is this: This is, obviously, very important
to me, personally, on this topic, coming from a State that is so
military in our focus and proudly so, being the father of a marine--
that makes a difference to me. But even if this debate were about
another topic, I am so glad that we just spent time deliberating, for
gosh sake, instead of rushing to a war in 3 days. We had a very robust
process of full committee consideration, of full Senate floor debate,
of amendments--some that were easy and some that were really hard; some
that were really close and some that weren't so close.
We showed that we can operate in what I have never really experienced
in the time I have been here, but what I have had glimpses of in this
debate: We can operate according to sort of a regular order--the way we
should do things. And regular order is kind of a phrase; who knows what
that means?
It means deliberation when we are making important decisions,
allowing the committees to take their time to do the work, allowing
committee members to shape a bill, getting the bill on the floor,
giving it the time it deserves. That is what the Senate has been known
for since 1787.
We have declined in our ability or, perhaps, our willingness to do it
the old-fashioned way, but when we do it the old-fashioned way and we
deliberate, we make better decisions. And I am proud to have been part
of a decision-making process that has enabled all 100 Senators to
participate in a meaningful way.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for S. 316, a
bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against
Iraq. Sending America's sons and daughters to fight in foreign lands
has serious consequences. Those who volunteer for military service, as
well as their families, agree to
[[Page S1014]]
carry things with them for their lifetimes--sometimes difficult and
painful things--all at the behest of the U.S. government and on behalf
of the American people.
I am grateful for and thank those servicemembers who bravely
conducted themselves in Iraq with honor, restraint, and in accordance
with American values and ideals. With that important preface, let me
say clearly: I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Iraq war before I
was elected to Congress, while I was a Member of the House of
Representatives, and I oppose it today.
I believe that by any objective measure, the 2002 U.S. invasion of
Iraq was among the greatest foreign policy disasters in my lifetime.
Not only did it cause death and immense suffering of thousands of
Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but it also ignited a
series of regional tensions and tertiary conflicts that have carried on
for decades.
Both the Gulf War and the 2002 invasion of Iraq required legal
authorities. The Iraq authorizations of military force were legally
necessary and largely supported at the time. However, very practically,
we no longer need an authorization for use of military force against a
country we now regard as a partner and to which we provide hundreds of
millions of dollars in economic and military aid. This bill recognizes
the positive evolution of our relations with the Government of Iraq. We
will continue to work with our Iraqi partners to limit our military
presence and narrowly define the actions our servicemembers are
authorized to take. It is also important to note that this resolution
will have no impact whatsoever on current U.S. military operations.
Some opponents of this bill have suggested that repealing the
authorizations for use of force will embolden our adversaries or
exhibit America's weakness. To the contrary, whether one supported or
opposed the invasions of Iraq 31 and 20 years ago, it is important to
repeal these antiquated relics of history.
As national security threats arise, they should be properly
addressed. The President can request congressional authorization for
the use of military force with properly debated justifications, after
which, Members of Congress will vote their conscience and America's
will. This bill does nothing to restrict presidential powers of this
nor future Presidents. America will defend herself--always. However, it
is critical that America's use of force be thoughtful and deliberate,
informed by accurate intelligence, and used only when necessary to
preserve and protect our vital national security interests.
Over the years, I have consistently voted to repeal the Iraq
authorizations for use of military force. I commend my colleagues,
Senators Kaine and Young, for their tenacity and determination to see
these repeals through. I also strongly support a review of the 2001
authorization for use of military force which has been the legal basis
for actions far beyond what was ever intended after the attacks of 9/
11.
For the task at hand, however, I urge all Senators to support S. 316,
a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against
Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, thank you very much and thank you to
Senator Kaine.
I will start with this. There are a lot of things he said that I
agree with, and, particularly, that part about him not getting very far
with his looks and instead using persistence. I think he is absolutely
correct in that regard.
Senator Kaine has been a true, committed, good-faith warrior on this
issue, as has Senator Young, and some of the things that were said out
here are absolutely accurate and deserve to be underscored and things
that I agree with.
First of all, I really appreciate Senator Kaine pointing out the fact
that the deliberations on this particular repeal of the AUMF to get the
rule off of the books regarding war has taken a whole lot longer and a
lot more deliberation than the actual passage of it to get into the
war.
It is easy to stand here and say that people were wrong who did this
20 years ago. I don't know how many are left. There is only a handful,
maybe half a dozen, who were on this floor at the time they voted for
it. In their defense, of course, they had information that was very
different than the information that we have today, which is
unfortunate, because, as you have pointed out, there has been a lot of
harm done as a result of this.
So we should start with that, and that is that one of the most
important things we do here in Congress is deliberating whether or not
to send our sons and daughters into harm's way in war. There is nothing
more somber than that, and to those who actually fought in this war,
the view that America has toward them of appreciation for their taking
up the arms when we asked them to do so cannot be overstated. It is a
tremendous sacrifice that they have made, and we owe them a lot.
Having said that, I come back to what Senator Kaine has said for a
long time. If that vote were held today, I think it would be unanimous
that we not pull the trigger as was done 20 years ago. But that was
then and this is now, and the information is very different.
So to the men and women in uniform, their service was honorable. Less
than 1 percent of Americans raise their hands to answer the Nation's
call when this happens, and we have to commend them for that.
While I support the repeal of the 1991 Gulf war authorization, I
don't support the repeal of this 2002 AUMF at this time. This needs to
be repealed; there is no question about it. It should be replaced by
something, and that is one of the real problems here, because the
debate to do that has been ongoing for as long as I have been here, and
we have been unable to land on the same point to get it done. Again, we
mostly agree, but there is handful of disagreements on it. So with
that, I cannot vote for it at this time.
Part of the problem--well, there are two problems here: One is the
fluidity in Iraq at this time, and the second one Senator Young
properly and clearly outlined what the ambitions of Iran are. The
fluidity in Iraq and the ambitions of Iran are the two reasons why I am
opposed to repealing at this time.
Iraq itself is a less-than-perfect security partner. All of us on
Foreign Relations have dealt with that issue over and over again, as we
have had ups and downs there. They are a less-than-perfect partner.
I have serious concerns about the influence of the Iranian-aligned
militias, which I know my friends do also. These are real problems.
Across multiple administrations--both Republican and Democrat
administrations--the 2002 AUMF has been used to address threats
emanating from Iraq.
Specifically, multiple administrations have relied on its authority
to address the threat from Iran-backed militias, and Iran is clearly
the problem here. I have been in the room when these decisions were
made. I have participated in those decisions, and the 2002 AUMF was a
factor in those decisions.
Should the statutory authority fall away, we are only left with the
President's constitutional article II powers to protect Americans. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some on my side of the
aisle are quick to point out that the President's constitutional
authorities are used as an excuse to support repeal, what we are doing
here. But those constitutional authorities are unfettered and really
unrestrained as far as the President is concerned.
So by repealing this, instead of reasserting congressional authority,
we are actually ceding solely to the President, the executive branch,
which no one in this room wants to do.
Further repeal signals finality and an end to hostilities but, the
Iranian-backed militias continue to attack us. Iran has long sought to
eject the United States from Iraq, but Iran and its proxies have
attacked American troops and diplomats over 80 times just since
President Biden took office and with only a few U.S. responses.
It is clear that Iran doubts American resolve. I stand here today to
say to Iran: Have no doubts. We do have resolve.
Just last week, we lost yet another American in Syria at the hands of
an Iranian-supported militia. It is objectionable that the
administration didn't notify Congress of this attack until after we
completed debate on relevant amendments and had adjourned for the week.
[[Page S1015]]
I know my colleagues who are on the other side of this issue probably
have the same bad feelings about that that I do. This was not right, to
withhold this information from us.
The Biden administration talks about defending our interests and
deterring Iran. The administration launched a strike in retaliation for
killing that American last Thursday, but in response the Iran-backed
militias simply conducted an even larger attack against us.
The truth is the administration is failing and has failed in its
attempts to deter Iran, and today we are in not a very good position in
that regard. That is why this repeal sends an additional dangerous
message at a poor time and further weakens U.S. engagement in the
region.
It is clear the region sees the Biden administration sitting on the
sidelines. This repeal will only add fuel to the narrative that the
United States is disengaging from the region, which we hear all the
time. We should remember that great power competition is global, not
just in Asia and the Pacific, though, of course, those issues have
raised their ugly head in recent years.
I also remain unconvinced that the administration has conducted any
meaningful consultations with Iraq, Israel, or other partners on the
repeal of this authority and how those reactions may affect U.S.
burdens and commitments in the region. Consultation with our partners
is always important.
Finally, turning to detention authority, for years the 2002 AUMF has
been cited as authority for detention for known captured terrorists.
Last week, I put forward an amendment that would require the Secretary
of Defense to certify that repeal of this authority would not harm
detention authority or the U.S. litigation positions against detained
terrorists. If a court were to find that the 2001 AUMF did not provide
legal authority for detention, which has not been settled at this
point, supplemental legal authorities like the 2002 AUMF would be
absolutely critical.
I sincerely would like to support this repeal--I really would. And I
hope to be here when we do get to repeal at some point down the line,
but now is not the time for it. The realities on the ground convince me
I cannot support repeal at this time. We have got to deal with the
world as it is, and, as a result of that, I am compelled to vote no.
Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for all those who
have worked on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this vote that we are about to take
today has deep personal significance for me and for many others. For
me, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I finally
have come full circle from my vote in the House of Representatives 21
years ago when I did not support the 2002 AUMF.
I have, for my 31 years in Congress, had a standard. If the cause is
right and the Nation needs it, then I will vote to send my son and
daughter into war, and I will vote to send anyone else's sons and
daughters into war. But if the cause is not right and the Nation truly
doesn't need it, not only will I not send my son and daughter into war,
I won't vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters into war.
And, at that time, as a Member of the House, I did my due diligence
with all the evidence that was available, and I saw no clear and
present danger, no imminent threat to the United States, and, above
all, no evidence--underline ``evidence''--of weapons of mass
destruction. So I voted no. I was in the minority at the time, and it
was, in many respects, a tough vote, but it was the right vote.
It is significant for some of my fellow Senators who also themselves,
many, have fought in the war in Iraq, and I echo what Senator Risch,
the ranking member said. When our sons and daughters answer the call,
they don't say: Is this the right or wrong war?
They just say: I am here to serve.
And so we honor their service, both in the Iraq war and in the Gulf
war before it. And I think what we do today, actually, is the ultimate
way in which we honor it. It is significant for those whose sons and
daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones have fought,
and it is significant because, for the first time in five decades, when
Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, we are ending a war--
the first time in five decades.
So, today, I want to speak about what we are accomplishing together
as we turn the page on that war and that chapter of American foreign
policy. It has taken 21 long years for this body to reevaluate the
adoption of the 2002 AUMF, and, today, we are working together--and
this is the ultimate expression of what this body should be; working
together, Democrats and Republicans--to support repeal.
And I want to salute the majority leader, Senator Schumer, for giving
us the time on the floor and a process for which the weightiness of
what we are doing could be fully considered, and I salute him for doing
so.
That makes this historic vote a bipartisan vote. With this vote, we
make clear that the Iraq of 2023 is not the Iraq of 2003. Far from
being a menace to the region, today's Iraq is a willing U.S. partner
that seeks closer integration with its Arab neighbors.
With this vote, we can show the world that the United States is a
strong partner, that we are not an occupying force, that we engage with
partner countries when their interests are aligned with ours.
This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to
U.S. interests--and I agree with my colleague about the challenges of
Iran. No one has fought harder for over two decades on the question of
meeting the challenge of Iran, but this is not about Iran. This is
about Iraq. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraq of 2002 is not the Iraq of
2023.
This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to
U.S. interests, the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military
force do not address those threats and are not necessary for the United
States to defend against them.
This vote shows that Congress is prepared to claw back our
constitutional role in deciding how and when our Nation goes to war and
also when it should end wars. It also protects against future
administrations abusing authorizations that outlive their mandate but
remain on the books.
We can take our responsibilities once again to call if the Nation
needs it and the President comes and says: I need an authorization for
the use of force because country X is challenging the national security
of the United States. We can do that. But we should not allow any
President to use an authorization that was never intended for country X
or the circumstances of that to be the excuse to go to war without
coming to Congress. So I see it differently than my colleague.
To be clear, this vote has nothing to do with Iran and in no way
diminishes our ability to protect U.S. interests against Iranian
aggression.
It has taken a long time to get here. I want to commend my colleague
Senator Kaine, who has been a constant clarion call of our
responsibility and pricked the conscience of the committee and the
Senate on several occasions to get to this point, and also Senator
Young, who has been joining him in that effort, for their stalwart
commitment to get this done and to see this through to such a momentous
conclusion.
This is a defining moment. I urge all my colleagues to vote to repeal
the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to use military force in Iraq. We owe
it to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and to their families. We
owe it to the servicemembers who again may be called upon to fight. We
owe it to them to demonstrate that we take our solemn duty seriously
and to do what is right.
I am proud that we are taking this step today. We should all be proud
of the history we are making together to pass this legislation with a
strong bipartisan vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleagues, our
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez;
Senator Kaine, who has worked on this bill not for days and not for
months but for years and never gave up hope; Senator Young; Senator
Risch; and so many others--thank you, Senator Young--who worked so hard
to make this day happen.
Twenty years after the start of the Iraq war, the Senate finally,
finally, finally declares today the time has come
[[Page S1016]]
to repeal the legal authorities that began that war in the first place.
This is bipartisan, and that is one of the beauties of this.
Democrats and Republicans joined to say that it has been long enough,
that the Iraq war has long been over. These authorizations for the use
of force against Iraq are no longer necessary for our security.
Make no mistake, this vote repealing the Iraq war powers is one for
the history books.
The American people, as we know, are tired of endless wars in the
Middle East. Every year we keep these AUMFs on the books is another
chance for future administrations to abuse them.
We owe it to the over 4,000 who died in Iraq, to their families, to
our servicemembers who served there, to our veterans, and all of the
communities impacted by the war--we owe it to all of them to act.
There is a very good chance that both Chambers can pass these AUMF
repeals before the end of this year so this bill can be signed into
law. This is not just going to be a one-House action. We have good
support in the House of Representatives, the President is for it, and
the odds are high that this much needed legislation will become law.
Again, I hope this process can be a blueprint for how the Senate
works over the next few years. We sat down with our Republican
colleagues--and, of course, it is the right of the minority to offer
amendments--and came to an agreement. The amendments were not dilatory.
The amendments were not gotcha. They were sincere attempts to change
the bill. But by allowing amendments, we allowed this bill to go
forward, and we would like that to be a metaphor for the future.
We will look diligently, assiduously for opportunities to continue
the Senate working successfully on bipartisan legislation in the
future.
I yield the floor.
Vote on S. 316
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
is expired, amendment No. 15 is withdrawn, and the bill is considered
read a third time.
The amendment (No. 15) was withdrawn.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--30
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Mullin
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Coons
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
(Applause.)
The bill (S. 316) was passed as follows:
S. 316
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1; 105 Stat. 3; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50
U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Michigan.
____________________