On the recordJuly 13, 2017
I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma and his consistent and strong leadership on this issue. I, like him, believe that it is time to have a new AUMF, given the change of circumstances and the evolution of the threats which we face. This is the third administration that has had to take the 2001 AUMF and stretch its meaning to encompass all sorts of groups in all sorts of countries in all sorts of circumstances. I think, from a legal standpoint, we need to update the AUMF so that we are consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The even more important point is the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma made, and that is that the men and women who are out there risking their lives deserve to know that they have the full backing of the country that comes from an AUMF that Congress has passed. I do want to take exception with one point that is sometimes made. This House has voted twice to update the 2001 AUMF. It voted in 2011 and in 2012 to update that AUMF to include associated forces. It happened to be part of the NDAA, even though the Armed Services Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction. The Foreign Affairs Committee worked with us, and we passed it twice in the House. It did not survive contact with the Senate, and although there was some detention language that came from it, but there had been efforts in this House to update this language.…
