We are now the only country that has announced that we will not be part of these discussions.

So there is discussion taking place at the National Security Council level with legal advisers, with military advisers.

there is not a military solution to the crisis in North Korea, that any military option carries unbelievable risk factors

You may very well be getting opinions from the White House that this is legal, but you would have to make your own independent judgment.

Can the President really order a nuclear attack without any controls?

If there is an illegal order presented to the military, the military is obligated to refuse to follow it.

this Saturday is Veterans Day. On this 11th day of the 11th month each year, we pause to honor and pay tribute to our veterans and the countless sacrifices they have made to serve our country. We also honor their families, who have endured…

later today we will start the process of voting on the confirmation of William Wehrum for Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation. I take this time to urge my colleagues to reject this…

I would ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by 47 conservation, environmental, and public health organizations to members of this Committee in opposition to Ms. White's confirmation be made part of the record.

the United States should be sitting at the table during climate discussions with the international community, and yes, climate change is real.

I very much appreciate that statement. And I was impressed by your highlight of maintaining your integrity, which, to me, is not always easy.

today I wish to shine a spotlight on the increasingly dire political, security, and humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Senator Booker and I, along with Senators Durbin, Coons, Warren, Markey, and Brown, recently…

Climate change is of course real.

I want to thank both of our nominees for their willingness to serve in a very important public position.

President Trump will be leaving on a lengthy trip to Asia. He will be visiting Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In each of those countries, we expect that the No. 1 national security issue that will be…

Does the administration now consider that the 60-day clock has begun, and if not, what is the legal reasoning behind this conclusion?

There may be some disagreements about what the AUMF covers currently and what Congress should include in a more up-to-date AUMF.

I am deeply concerned about President Trump's inclination to go to war rather than find diplomatic solutions to these crises.

There is no debate, as the chairman has pointed out, about our resolve to go after terrorists who are attacking our interests and our allies.

This is one of the most important topics the United States Senate and this committee could ever consider: under what circumstances and legal authority should the United States send men and women into war.

The October 4th ambush of U.S. and Nigerien forces was a tragic but isolated incident.

I will point out that there are significant differences here about whether the 2001 authorization covers the military operation--counterterrorism operations against ISIS.

I am not sure that Congress envisioned that we would have the potential of ground troops in Northern Africa in combat missions.

So, without any further authorization from Congress, you believe you have authorization if the determination is made to deploy whatever force is necessary to go after Boko Haram, including ground troops?

But the specific mission that they were participating in, as I understand it, went beyond that. Am I wrong on that?