I would suggest that we do not, and our adversaries, our allies, and our troops need to know that we do.

The legislation would arbitrarily terminate the authorization 5 years after date of enactment.

It is clear that Congress is united in the strong support of the fight against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and other terrorist groups.

Senator Flake and I have introduced an authorization for military action against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban to replace 2001 and 2002.

But the only way we will ever change that is if we as a body stand up and say enough is enough, we are going to reassert the power of the Senate and the power of Congress to determine these things.

Just passing an AUMF is not enough for me because it should be an AUMF that does give us some hope of someday coming to an end.

You cannot have the politicians running the war. You need a commander-in-chief, and that was a really good idea.

President Trump has even threatened the use of military options in response to the crisis in Venezuela.

I hope that our witnesses can help us examine what the appropriate oversight role for Congress is.

What happens when somebody knocks on the door of the Oval Office and says, Mr. President, North Korea has just launched, what do you want us to do?

I was alarmed that you were going to justify it with 9/11.

We should resist when the administration... tells us they have... preemptive war anywhere, any time.

The United States has relied for too long on military force as the first response to the problems of terrorism, insurgency, and instability abroad.

The 2001 AUMF said the President is 'authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on…

You count on being able to get the next NDAA passed and the next appropriations bill passed because you have confidence in your request, and you have confidence in Congress to take seriously the need to defend the United States. Is that…

The Constitution was very clear. We were supposed to initiate war.

You do not doubt the will of Congress to battle non-state terrorist groups, do you, Secretary?

This normalization of attacks based on how a person worships or who they are or where they come from seems to have somehow emboldened extremist hate groups.

I appreciated the statement you put out at the University of Chicago following the tragedy in Charlottesville, because it was a powerful statement and it spoke to the anti-semitism of this.

The Supreme Court didn't say in that case that you couldn't charge for necessary security.

University administrators and public officials, particularly the President, must speak out forcefully against white nationalism and in support of the First Amendment.

I share Senator Warren's belief strongly that colleges should be a place of robust speech and disagreement.

I certainly would not want to cut faculty salaries or raise student tuition, in all seriousness, in order to have to deal with this.

the other fellow might be right.

the debate over free speech on college campuses is taking place against the backdrop of increased activity by a white nationalist movement that has been emboldened by President Trump's rhetoric