Authorization for Use of Military Force

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives face many votes on many subjects. Most of them you vote on and forget very quickly. There are some you will never forget. At least two votes that I cast here 18 years ago are on that list in terms of my Senate service.

It was 18 years ago, and just shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001, in which 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives. President George W. Bush came to Congress and asked for authority under our Constitution to wage a war--in fact, to wage two wars. He wanted authority from the U.S. Senate and Congress to invade Iraq and to invade Afghanistan. There was a long debate leading up to it about why it would be necessary for us to start a war with those two nations.

In the case of Iraq, the argument was made that Saddam Hussein, their leader, had weapons of mass destruction that were dangerous to the region and, ultimately, dangerous to the United States. He was a tyrant and everyone knew it, but those threats were the ones that led many people to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. I disagreed. We cast that vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and 23 of us voted no--1 Republican and 22 Democrats.

It turned out, after we invaded Iraq and took a close look, there were no weapons of mass destruction. The real basis for the war did not exist.

Eighteen years later, having lost almost 5,000 American lives and spent trillions of dollars, we are still in Iraq. I don't know how this will ever end or when our troops will finally be able to come home. Hussein is gone, for sure, but the situation in that country is certainly not dramatically better than it was when we invaded it. We couldn't guarantee tomorrow what is going to happen there, whether it will be stable or friendly to the United States after all we have invested in, all we have lost in that invasion.

At the same time, we were debating a war in Afghanistan. To me, it was a different proposition. The administration said: We know the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are in Afghanistan. What is our message to those who turn around and attack the United States and kill so many innocent people?

So I saw Afghanistan different than Iraq, and I voted for the military effort that was undertaken to go after the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida organization.

It took us years to find Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for masterminding that deadly day in our history, and to finally bring him to justice. The fact is, 18 years later, we are still in Afghanistan today. It is hard to explain. Thousands of American lives have been lost there. Millions, billions, maybe even trillions of dollars have been spent. And most people agree, the day after we leave, whenever it is, the country will revert to what it was before we walked in. There have been 18 years of sacrifice, 18 years of suffering, and even death, for America's patriotic soldiers. It is a reminder about these wars that seem like such a good idea, so necessary, the right way to respond, and here we sit with two of the longest wars in the history of the United States.

Now the question is, Are we preparing for another war? I hate to say those words, but I have to be honest. What this President has done in our relationship with Iran has brought us to the moment where we have to ask that question: Is the President preparing to ask us to go to war against Iran?

The first thing he did--one of the first things--was to disparage the Iran nuclear agreement, an agreement entered into under President Obama to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a good agreement. I supported it and still do. I am not making any excuses for Iran. They are engaged in conduct around the world that is inspiring terrorism and threatening our allies and friends. I am making no excuses for that. But to make certain that Iran did not have nuclear weapons in the future was the right thing to do.

We entered into this agreement under President Obama. China, Russia, European nations, and others joined us, and we sent international inspectors into that country. They reported back to us regularly that there was no evidence of the development of nuclear weapons, and every door was open to them. We had surveillance on the ground in a country that has been largely secretive and isolated. I thought that was the right thing to do, and I still do. President Trump disagreed, and the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement.

Since then, there has been an escalation of tension between our two nations, between Iran and the United States. Some of it is, clearly, a reaction by the Iranians to sanctions that we have imposed, which have caused great problems with Iran and their oil supply. They have answered in kind by threatening oil tankers from other countries. It is the kind of escalation you would expect two countries that are leading up to a confrontation to engage in. Now the questions are, Will we, in fact, go to war, and if we are prepared to, will this President--Donald Trump--follow the Constitution of the United States?

The votes I talked about 18 years ago gave the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, a decision-making part of the process. Their Members of Congress voted. The question is whether President Trump will follow his constitutional responsibility in coming to Congress for the authority to engage in a war in Iran.

I certainly don't believe the vote I took 18 years ago, before many of the Members of the Senate were even here, has authorized him or any President to invade Iran. That was never even considered when we were in that debate.

Now the question is, Will he come forward and give the American people a voice in this process in deciding whether we are going to war?

I, for one, look at this with great skepticism and even negativity. A war is so much easier to get into than it is to get out of. We have proven that over and over again. Politicians who make the speeches and rationalize these wars are usually not the ones who face combat and death on the battlefield. That is turned over to our young women and men in uniform who bravely fight for the causes we identify as politicians.

I would sincerely hope what Senator Udall has brought to the floor, to open a conversation and discussion, is really taken to heart by the American people and, more importantly, by the White House. As Senator Udall has reminded us, any President--this President--needs the constitutional authority to bring this Nation into a war. Without that authority, he cannot and should not move forward.

They point to the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their oilfields. Of course, they were terrible. Whether they came from Houthi rebels in Yemen or whether they came from Iran itself, it is terrible, but the fact is, the United States has not signed an agreement saying we are prepared to defend Saudi Arabia, whoever attacks them.

We want to have a good alliance with them--it is difficult with the current leadership--but we haven't entered into a mutual defense pact by any means. When Saudi Arabia is attacked, we are not required to muster our American troops in their defense. We should take care and be thoughtful and not escalate this situation.

Senator Udall's amendment regarding Iran is a straightforward and timely reaffirmation of what is already in article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--only the U.S. Congress can declare war. I am pleased to join him and others in this legislative effort to reaffirm that without the consent of Congress, no war with Iran is authorized. I hope the Defense authorization conferees will keep this in mind.

This Congress has rubberstamped too many of the President's worst instincts. We must not do so again and march into another war in the Middle East. Two wars still going, still costing American lives, even to this day, are way too many. A third war at this point is unthinkable.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source