I understand why people are concerned and may think that seeking appropriate legal authorization for counterterrorism is either a way to seek expansion of war or attempt to restrict the President.

And to the question that Mr. Preston raised earlier about Afghanistan and getting back to the fact that the administration has not called this a Global War on Terror, but has--you know, is certainly carrying out counterterrorist operations…

As a Congress, do not need to be involved in this subject at all.

I think what I heard you say is, he has the authority to carry out the activities he is carrying without really having an AUMF.

This is a real debate that we need to have.

Rather than abdicating the responsibility for confronting this threat and leaving it to the executive branch, Congress has a responsibility to both provide the President with the legal authorities needed to ensure our security and to…

Does the President have the ability, without an AUMF, to carry out the activities that he is carrying out today against terrorists, affiliates of al-Qaeda?

Well, tell me what that role is. Because if I understand what you said before, the President can carry out the activities he is carrying out without an AUMF.

I will set that up the first day we are back, and I look forward to that meeting.

I do want to thank you for having this hearing. I think it has been very educational for all involved.

I actually want to say to you that my wrath should really be taken toward the State Department and not yourself.

Today's threat is about affiliated groups metastasizing across the globe, and the current authorization simply does not make sense anymore.