On the recordJune 27, 2019
I rise to explain the context in which I will vote for the Romney amendment. First, I am grateful for Senator Romney's substantive contributions and his collegiality as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The plain text of the amendment states the obvious--that funds authorized by the NDAA may be used to ensure the ability of our Armed Forces to defend themselves and U.S. citizens. I believe every Member of this body certainly shares the fundamental understanding that our Armed Forces must have the ability to defend themselves and our citizens against foreign enemies. Indeed, the purpose of the NDAA is to provide the authorizations that are necessary to ensure the Department of Defense is in a position to defend the United States and our citizens. In my opinion, in that respect, this amendment is not necessary. For anyone who argues that the Romney language is somehow necessary because of the Udall amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, I say reread the Udall amendment. It includes an explicit exception for self- defense. I am concerned that this administration will seek to twist the Romney amendment into something that is completely unrecognizable, something that we are not voting on today, and something that has no basis in law. As a legal matter, the amendment does nothing more than to explicitly provide the authority to use funds under the act to ensure this ability. Let me be clear. This amendment does nothing more than that.…
Source
govinfo.gov




