Floor Statements

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my statement before the vote.

Madam President, the vote the Senate is about to take is about what is right for our Nation. It is part of exercising our most solemn duty as elected officials. It is a recognition that Congress not only has the power to declare war but also should have the responsibility to end wars, and it is a decision to turn the page on one of those chapters in our country's history.

With today's vote, we can move closer to repealing two obsolete and outdated authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq. Repealing these authorizations will demonstrate to the region--and to the world--that the United States is not an occupying force; that the war in Iraq has come to an end; that we are moving forward, working with Iraq as a strategic partner. So I commend the Senate for moving forward to take this critical step.

I hope the Senate will speak overwhelmingly in support of preserving congressional prerogatives as to when and under what circumstances we send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters into harm's way and clawing back authorities that have clearly outlived their purpose and scope.

Some of my colleagues have argued that repealing 20- and 30-year-old authorizations will weaken our ability to confront Iranian aggression. Some have offered amendments that would alter these authorizations. Others have offered amendments that would expand these authorizations. And a few have offered amendments that have, well, quite frankly, nothing at all to do with these authorizations. So let me address that point briefly.

Just in the last few days, the President directed targeted strikes against groups affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria. This was in response to Iranian-backed drone attacks that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded five American servicemembers at a maintenance facility in Syria. The President looked at the intelligence, he consulted his advisors, he ordered the strike, and he committed, publicly, to continue to defend against Iranian aggression and to respond to attacks against U.S. forces. He did so without-- without--relying on the 1991 or 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

This President has been clear in his view that he has sufficient authority to defend against threats to U.S. personnel and interests. If we are going to debate whether to provide the President additional authorities, then we should have that debate separately. But it should not be under the cloak of keeping old authorizations on the books, authorizations that are not needed to meet any current threat. They are not about the current threat; they are about a regime that is no longer alive and has been gone for the better part of those 20 years. This is just a tactic to delay this repeal from going forward. Nor should we turn a debate about repeal and a chance to take

a historic step forward into a new backdoor authorization for the use of force against another country.

So I urge my colleagues to stay focused on the facts, repeal an authorization that is no longer used or needed, and close this chapter on American foreign policy. Let's finally--finally--repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote to move forward with repeal of these AUMFs.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I rise to speak to the amendments that we are considering on the effort to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorization for the use of military force.

As I have previously said, I welcome a broader discussion on the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, but that is not before us today.

Following repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF, I hope that we can engage in what will likely be a robust debate about what authorities the administration does need and what the scope, potentially, of a replacement AUMF would be, but as yet we have not had that substantive discussion, and I don't believe it would be wise to repeal the 2001 AUMF without engaging in that debate first, without having a hearing to understand what is the authority the administration needs to continue to protect America.

The details matter here. We just finished a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the Secretary of State. He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the 2001 AUMF is still a vital authority that is being relied on. So we may disagree with how the 2001 AUMF has been maybe stretched by other executive branches and concerned as to how we will continue to use it, but an outright repeal, with nothing to replace it--nothing to replace it--is not a sound response that ensures our military has what it needs to execute missions of defense of U.S. interests.

So I support a debate to replace the 2001 AUMF and to develop what should be the specifics of that replacement. But absent a framework to replace it with a new authority, how do we repeal it outright and leave the country naked? So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.I want to speak to Senator Graham's amendment.

I share and appreciate Senator Graham's concern about the Iranian regime. Indeed, he and I have worked very closely on the issue of Iranian threats. I have spent the better part of my career addressing Iranian threats--its nuclear program, its support for global terrorism, its destabilizing its neighborhood through proxies and interference, and the threat that it poses to its own citizens. Yet the question before us is not whether Iran poses a threat to U.S. interests but whether the 2002 AUMF is necessary to counter those threats and if there is already sufficient legal authority to respond to any such threat. And the answer is pretty clear.

The President is clear in his view--one shared by every recent administration--that he has sufficient authority under article II to defend U.S. interests and personnel against Iranian-backed militias. Indeed, the administration has actually taken military action a number of times to protect and defend our personnel against attacks from these groups and to deter future attacks.

The fact is, the 2002 AUMF that we have been debating is superfluous to today's military efforts in the Middle East. The administration has the authorities it needs to address Iranian threats to our people and our interests.

Now, I thought this debate was about ending the authorization for use of force that already exists, that no longer needs to exist, and that should be closed. Just as Congress has the power and the responsibility to declare and to give the authorization for use of military force, it should also end it. That is what this discussion is about. That is what this debate is about. That is what these votes are about--not to create a new authorization for force. That is what Senator Graham's amendment would do. I think that would be a lot more robust debate as to how and when and in what way we would give such authority.

So I would urge my colleagues--as someone who has fought for the better part of these 25 years against Iran, I would take a back seat to no one as it relates to that fight--to, in fact, oppose that amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks in full before the vote.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, in the early, overcast hours

of March 19, 2003, American stealth bombers and Navy cruise missiles hit Baghdad in the first strikes of the Iraq war.

When I think about that war today, I think about the costs--the costs to the Iraqi people, who suffered so terribly, including the families of the hundreds of thousands killed in the insurgency, and the sectarian and ethnic violence that followed the U.S. invasion.

I think of the costs to the brave American servicemembers who answered the call, who didn't ask whether it was right or wrong but just answered the call--almost 5,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice-- and to the tens of thousands more who were wounded; to the countless sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones who had to grieve those they lost and care for those who came home wounded, with scars both visible and invisible, changed by combat forever.

I think about the financial costs--almost $2 trillion that could have gone to rebuilding America's infrastructure, caring for America's sick and aging, and educating our next generation.

I also think about the costs of something very close to my heart, which is the cause of freedom and the fight for democratic values.

Our Nation's democracy, as Ronald Reagan said, was a shining city on a hill, an example to the world of something to aspire to; but the Iraq war undermined our credibility with our partners and allies, with our enemies, and with millions of American citizens who were against it. For too many around the world, the Iraq war made a mockery of U.S. support for democracy and freedom.

Today, I proudly remember my vote on the floor of the House of Representatives back in 2002. Life in America was tense in the wake of 9/11. Everything we stood for had been attacked on our own soil--just miles from where I still live. Those of us who resisted the march to war were called naive or worse, but some of us knew what we had to do. We felt the weight of history on our shoulders, and we voted against the war.

I spent a lot of time in reviewing the documents that were available to Members of the House. I saw no clear and present danger, no imminent threat, and, above all, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. And I understand. If the cause is right and America needs it, I will send my son and daughter; but if the cause is not right, I won't send my son and daughter nor will I vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters into harm's way.

Two decades later, we have the chance to make history again but, this time, for the better. We have the chance to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs and honor the legacy of those who fought and those we lost--to end a war we are no longer waging; to exercise Congress's war powers-- the most solemn duty of this body--because Saddam Hussein has been dead for 20 years and his regime is gone; because the Iraq of 2023 is, obviously, not the Iraq of 2003; because Kuwait has been a secure, sovereign, and committed U.S. partner for over three decades; and because the threats that these authorizations address no longer exist.

The United States is no longer an occupying force. Iraq is now a strategic partner. It is time to confront the challenges of the region and of the world together. Repealing these authorizations is an important step forward. It removes an irritant in the bilateral relationship, and it cements our partnership. It helps Iraq move forward, independent and more integrated with its Arab neighbors.

So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support, in the strongest terms possible, the repeal of the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq once and for all.

Let's mark the 20th anniversary this week of the Iraq war by paying tribute to the Iraqis who have suffered, to the Americans we lost, and to the American families who have provided unconditional support for those who have served every day for the last 20 years.

We will never forget the sacrifices they made in defense of the values we hold most dear. Let's honor those values by doing what Congress is supposed to do. When there is a need, it declares war, and when that is over, it is time to end the declaration and the authorization. That is what we have the power to do today.

With that, I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Kretman, a detailee from the State Department to the Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 118th Congress.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.