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…
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.
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.